Tappan  PresDuterian  flssociation  ] 

[  LIBRARY  j 

c    ^ 

[  (Presented  by  HON.  D.  BETHUNE  DUFFIELD.  ] 

\  From  Library  of  Rev.  Geo.  Duff.eld,  D.D.  \ 


BX  8495   .W323  L47  1863 
Levington,  John 
Watson's  Theological 
institutes  defended 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


DEFENDED; 


TUE  TEACrilXGS  OF  TR.iXSCEXDEXTAL  FIIILOSOFIIY  SHOWX 
TO  BE  AT  VARLVXCE  WITH  SCRIPTURE  AND 
MATTER  OF  FACT; 

ASD 

TEE  BIBLE  mOVED  TO  BE  COMPLETE  I2f  ITSELF,  BOTK 
IX  TEACniSG  AND  EVIDESCE. 


EEY.  ZO\m  LEVIXGTON. 


"  Tho  world  by  wisdom  {<TOi\iia%\  knew  not  God."— 1  Cob.  i,  21. 
"The  cntnmce  of  tliy  word  giveth  light.'"— FsiLii  cxix,  130. 


FOR  SALE  BY 

T.  K.  ADAMS,  90  WOODWARD  A\T:XUE,  DETROIT, 
BARNES  k  BURR,  NEW  YORK. 
18G3. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1SG3,  by 
JOHN  F.  TROW, 
tlio  Clerk's  office  of  tho  District  Court  of  tlie  United  Stales  for  tlie  i 
District  of  Now  York. 


JOHN  P.  TROW, 
>HINTEH,  STEBEOTYPEB,  AND  ELECTROTTPEB, 
4fi,  43,  &  50  Greene  Street, 
New  York. 


PREFACE. 


When  v:q  read  in  tlie  Quarterly  Eeview  tlae  article 
whicli  finally  moved  us  to  wi'ite  tlie  following  pages, 
"we  confidently  expected  to  see  replies  from  strong  men 
occupying  tlie  position  of  watchmen  upon  tlie  walls  of 
our  Zion  ;  but  our  expectations  have  been  entirely  dis- 
appointed ;  for  although  nearly  twelve  months  have 
passed  ^.way  since  its  ajjpearing,  nothing  has  appeared 
save  notices  of  approval,  and  some  of  these  from  men 
of  high  standing  in  our  Church.  These  approving  no- 
tices on  the  part  of  some,  and  entire  silence  on  the  part 
of  all  others,  sufficiently  indicate  the  prevalence  of  the 
sentiments  therein  contained,  and  to  which  we  have  felt 
it  our  duty  to  object.  We  are  fully  aware,  too,  that  the 
teachings  here  opposed  are  far  more  congenial  with  the 
popular  sentiment  of  the  day,  than  are  the  teachings 
which  we  oppose  to  them,  l^or  are  we  ignorant  of  the 
fact,  that  they  are  multitudinous  who  recognize  no 
authority  but  reason,  and  no  God  but  nature,  which  of 


4 


PREFACE. 


course,  are  defined  to  be  anything,  and  everything, 
according  to  the  whims  of  their  worshippers.  From 
this  class  it  is  not  at  all  liiely  that  our  little  p(^forna- 
ance  will  have  many  admirers  ;  thougli  we  still  indulge 
the  hojDe  that  it  may  be  useful  to  some  of  them. 
Everything  considered,  we  confess  we  are  forcibly  re- 
minded of  the  well-known  proverb,  Athanasius  contra 
mundum.  Eut  while  the  opposition  in  each  case  may 
be  similar,  the  parties  opposed  are  very  different ;  yet, 
even  this  does  not  discourage  us  when  we  remember 
that  truth,  "  God  hath  chosen  the  weak  things  of  this 
world  to  confound  the  things  wbicli  are  mighty." 
llesting  here,  and  merely  claiming  credit  for  sincerity 
of  belief  and  honesty  of  purpose,  and  simply  desiring 
a  candid  criticism,  we  commit  the  following  thoughts 
to  the  wide,  wide  world  of  mind,  trusting  that  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  to  whose  care  we  commend  them,  they 
A^•ill  battle  successfully  with  error,  and  exert  a  salutary 
influence  on  that  world  of  mind  in  all  time  to  come. 

To  those  with  whom  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  join 
issue,  I  have  the  kindest  feeling,  and  cheerfully  con- 
cede to  them  what  I  claim  for  myself,  sincerity  of  be- 
lief and  honesty  of  purpose. 

In  view  of  the  variety  and  difficulty  of  the  subjects 
discussed  in  the  following  pages,  it  would  be  folly  to 
claim,  or  expect,  that  there  is  no  mistake  ;  but  Avhcther 
the  mistakes  be  many  or  few,  we  have  as  yet  failed  to 


PKEFACE, 


5 


discover  them.  To  mere  fault-finders  we  liave  nothing 
to  say  :  they  are  a  class  of  people  of  whom  no  one  has 
a  high  opinion,  and  their  mere  fault-finding  is  utterly 
unworthy  of  notice. 

To  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  Watson's 
Theological  Institutes,  and  who  do  not  feel  particularly 
interested  in  their  defence,  a  few  of  the  following  pages 
may  not  be  very  interesting ;  with  this  exception, 
however,  the  subjects  discussed  are  so  various  and  im- 
portant that  their  discnssion  cannot  fail  to  be  interesting 
to  all. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  most  of  the  views  opposed 
in  the  following  pages  arc  becoming  increasingly  popu- 
lar ;  and  it  is  equally  evident  that  they  are  Titterly  ir- 
reconcilable with  those  views  hitherto  denominated 
orthodox  ;  therefore,  whichever  side  is  right,  the  sooner 
the  issue  is  joined  the  better, 

"We  have  already  mentioned  "  neming"'s  Vocabulary 
of  Philosophy,"  and.  will  here  acknowledge  our  in- 
debtedness to'  that  excellent  little  A^olume,  both  for 
thoughts  and  definitions, 

John  Levington. 

Saline,  March  2*7,  1803. 


WATSON'S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 
AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


CHAPTEE  I. 

The  first  article  in  the  Methodist  Quarterly  lieview  for 
April,  1862,  is  entitled  "Metaphysics  of  Watson's  Insti- 
tutes." This  title  would  indicate  that  Watson's  Meta- 
physics 07ihj,  are  involved  in  the  discussion ;  but  this  is 
not  the  case,  for  his  theological  teachings  are  deeply  in- 
volved, as  we  shall  soon  see.  It  is  not  this  article  alone 
that  moves  us  to  write  this  defence ;  certainly  we  would 
not  make  such  an  effort  merely  to  refute  the  views  of  an 
individual.  The  teachings  to  which  we  object  are,  in  the 
main,  and  claim  to  be,  those  of  a  certain  school  of  phi- 
losophy, and  are  presented  to  us  as  some  of  the  last  and 
best  discoveries  of  philosophical  research.  These  views 
are,  and  always  have  been  popular  with  the  sceptical  classes 
of  society ;  but  of  late,  if  we  mistake  not,  they  are  becoming 
more  and  more  popular  amongst  other  and  very  different 
classes  of  society.  These,  and  other  facts  which  will  be 
called  forth  in  the  course  of  our  investigations,  are^ot  only 
sufficient  to  justify  us  in  attempting  this  defence,  but  will, 
we  trust,  secure  the  deep  attention  of  every  lover  of  truth, 
on  whatever  side  the  truth  may  be  supposed  to  lie,  seeing 


8 


Watson's  tueological  institutes 


we  take  the  ground  that  the  teachings  which  we  oppose 
are  at  variance  with  Scripture  and  m'atter  of  fact,  and  that 
to  a  very  serious  extent,  as  we  expect  to  show. 

The  author  of  the  article  under  consideration,  after 
some  preliminary  remarks,  proceeds  thus  : 

"  That  we  may  clearly  apprehend  the  philosophical 
views  of  Mr.  Watson,  and  fairly  estimate  their  influence 
on  liis  theology,  it  will  be  necessary  that  we  glance  at  the 
systems  of  pliilosophy  which  were  prevalent  and  influential 
in  his  day.  There  are  two  schools  of  ^^hilosophy  which 
may  be  said  to  have  divided  and  given  direction  to  the 
philosophic  thought  of  the  last  century  :  the  Sensational,  or 
Empirical,  and  the  Transcendental,  or  Rational.  Their 
representatives  respectively  may  be  found  in  Locke  and 
Kant :  Locke  at  the  head  of  the  Sensational,  Kant  at  the 
head  of  tlie  Transcendental  School." 

After  some  remarks  upon  the  prevailing  and  distin- 
guishing tenets  of  those  schools,  which  tenets  will  be  no- 
ticed in  due  time,  our  reviewer  reaches  his  first  conclusion 
thus  :  "  So  mucli  being  premised,  we  have  now  no  difiiculty 
in  determining  Mr.  Watson's  relations  to  tlie  prevailing 
schools  of  philosophy.  Unquestionably  he  attaches  him- 
self to  the  system  of  Locke ;  he  was  a  disciple  of  the 
Empirical  School." 

Now  we  decidedly  object  to  this  mode  of  procedure  ; 
we  hold  that  Watson's  Institutes  should  be  tried  upon  their 
own  merits ;  it  is  a  review  of  "  Watson's  Metaphysics " 
that  is  undertaken,  not  the  philosophic  schools  of  his  day. 
Moreover,  it  is  doing  AYatson  a  gross  injustice  to  represent 
liim,  iif  the  entire  absence  of  evidence,  as  being  led  by 
Locke,  or  by  any  other  man  or  number  of  men ;  and  it  is 
calculated  even  to  prejudice  the  reviewer  and  his  readers 
against  Watson,  at  the  veiy  commencement  of  the  investi- 


AND  TUE  EICLE  DEFENDED. 


9 


gation.  The  deep-tbinkiug,  lofty-minded,  self-made  Wat- 
son, is  the  last  man  that  Ave  should  sus2)cct  of  being  led, 
even  by  "  the  over-towering  and  all-jiervading  philosoj^hy 
of  Locke."  So  far  from  this,  it  seems  quite  evident  that 
one  special  object  of  his  mission  was  to  rescue  the  great 
principles  of  religion  out  of  the  bands  of  bold,  vijin,  specu- 
lative, and  sceptical  philosophers,  a  work  for  which  he  was 
admirably  adapted,  and  in  which  he  was  gloriously  suc- 
cessful. Xor  is  liis  work  done ;  we  have  strong  confidence 
that  his  Institutes  will  do  in  this  coimtry  and  age  what 
they  did  in  his  own.  And  so  far  was  he  from  being  led 
by  Locke,  that  he  jomed  issue  with  him  on  the  subject 
of  government,  which  that  philosopher  and  his  followers 
called  "  the  social  compact."    This  idea  of  the  man  whose 

imjierial  name  ruled  supreme  in  the  English  Univei'sities 
and  schools  of  learning,"  Mr.  Watson  boldly  pronounced 

a  pure  fiction."  He  quotes  this  same  philosopher  approv- 
ingly in.  the  following  instances,  viz.,  as  to  his  definition  of 
moral  good  and  evil ;  as  to  the  necessity  of  divine  author- 
ity to  enforce  moral  i^recepts ;  and  as  to  his  statement  that 
the  bulk  of  mankind  have  neither  leisure  nor  capacity  for 
close,  consecutive  reasoning  and  demonstration.  More  than 
this  we  do  not  find  that  he  quotes  this  great  man  at  aU. 
Why  then  is  it  asserted,."  unquestionably  he  attaches  him- 
self to  the  system  of  Locke."  He  did  with  the  tcachuig 
of  Locke  just  wliat  he  did  with  that  of  all  other  men  :  he 
indorsed  what  he  thought  Avas  right,  and  rejected  what  he 
thought  was  wrong.  In.  proof  of  tliis  we  adduce  a  single 
fact  just  here.  Having  examined  the  Institutes  with  refer- 
ence to  this  very  thing,  we  find,  if  Ave  count  right,  ftiat  he 
quotes  from  as  many  as  three  hundred  leading  systems, 
schools,  and  individuals ;  giving  us  their  leading  philo- 
sophical and  theological  views,  or  principles,  and,  at  the 


10 


watson's  theological  institutes 


same  time,  rejecting  or  indorsing  according  as  he  approves 
or  disapproves ;  and  giving  us  his  reasons  for  so  doing. 
The  systems,  schools,  and  persons  thus  quoted,  flourished 
in  dift'erent  countries,  and  at  dilferent  times,  from  the  ear- 
liest period  of  history  to  his  own  times  ;  nor  does  he  liesi- 
tate  to  dissent  from  those  whom  he  esteemed  and  loved 
most,  as  will  be  seen  by  all  who  carefully  read  his  "  Listi- 
tutes,"  "  Expositions,"  and  published  sermons. 

But  having  declared  Watson  to  be  "  a  sensationalist,  a 
disciple  of  the  empirical  school,"  he  is  made  accountable 
for  the  teachings  of  that  school,  and  of  every  individual 
belonging  to  it ;  hence  it  is  quite  an  easy  matter  to  make 
out  a  bill  of  charges.  The  ajij^ellation  itself,  too,  Avill  assist 
very  much  in  making  out  such  a  bill.  Empiric:  Latin, 
empirictis  ;  Greek,  empeirikos^  that  is,  one  who  makes  ex- 
periments ;  a  quack,  who,  being  destitute  of  scientific  skill, 
merely  experimentizcs.  Hence  this  school,  according  to 
our  reviewer  (Review,  p.  182),  "Holds  that  all  simple  ideas 
existing  in  the  human  mind  are  the  direct  and  only  result 
of  sensation,  and  that  all  our  knowledge  is  derived  from 
experience.  Not  only  the  matter  of  our  ideas,  but  also 
their /brm  /  not  merely  the  occasion  of  our  ideas,  but  their 
cause  is  from  without.  The  mind  itself  does  not  supply 
one  element  of  truth.  It  has  no  standards  of  truth  within 
itself.  Nor  does  it,  of  itself,  affirm  any  first  principles,  any 
primitive  cognitions,  judgments,  or  beliefs  which  are  neces- 
sary to  the  attainment  of  truth.  The  human  mind  is  an 
empty  vessel,  into  which  our  sensations — a  heterogeneous 
mixture — are  poured  from  the  external  world,  upon  which 
the  mind  itself  exerts  no  modifying  influence,  does  not  even 
give  a  color  to  the  liquid,  but  simply  retains  it  in  memory 
until  it  shall  crystallize  into  the  classifications  of  science. 
Or,  to  emi^loy  the  favorite  figure  of  Locke  himself, 


AST)  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


11 


the  mind  is  a  '  tabula  rasa,'  a  blank  sheet  of  paper,  void 
of  all  characters,  and  without  any  ideas,  on  -which  the 
external  world,  by  a  species  of  photography,  -writes  its  own 
images,  and  those  which  bear  a  strong  resemblance  natu- 
rally blend  so  as  to  form  species  and  genera,  the  highest 
generalization  becoming  the  apex  of  all  science.  JUa?i, 
therefore,  has  no  ideas  of  right  and  ic'rong,  of  duty,  of 
accountability,  of  retribution,  of  immortcdity,  or  of  God, 
except  as  derived  from  without.  This  school  of  philosophy 
landed,  as  indeed  it  must  inevitably  land,  in  pure  material- 
ism, and  numbers  among  its  disciples,  or,  more  properly,  its 
high  priests,  such  -writers  as  Hartley,  Priestley,  Combe,  and 
Aug.  Conite."  Such  -was  the  school  of  which  "Watson  was 
a  disciple.  Such  were  his  fellow  discii)lcs  and  high  priests, 
and  such  the  tendency  of  the  -whole  "  that  it  landed,  as 
indeed  it  must  inevitably  land,  in  pure  materialism."  The 
reviewer,  however,  very  kindly  apologizes  for  Watson  thus : 
'"It  would  ill  become  us  to  complain  that  Mr.  Watson 
should  have  entertained  these  views.  They  ^Ycre  the  pre- 
vailing opinions  of  his  country  and  age.  They  -were  enter- 
tained by  Locke,  Ellis,  Leland,  Horsley,  and  other  equally 
distinguished  and  honored  names.  "Watson  has,  at  least, 
this  advantage — he  stands  amid  illustrious  men.  Yet  we 
can  ill  conceal  our  regrets.  His  design  was  noble  and 
praiseworthy.  He  sought  to  prove  the  necessity  of  oral 
revelation,  and  vindicate  for  it  the  honor  of  furnishing  all 
our  knowledge  of  God,  duty,  and  immortality ;  but  in  thus 
attempting  to  build  up  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of 
revealed  religion  by  rejecting  the  intuitions  of  the  human 
mind,  and  casting  doubt  upon  the  veracity  of  our  faculties, 
the  foundations  of  all  truth  are  loosened  and  unsettled ; 
yea,  the  very  fundamental  truths  upon  which  we  must 
plant  our  argument  in  demonstrating  the  truth  of  a  rcve- 


12 


avatson's  thkological  institutes 


lation  from  God ;  and  tlie  inquiring  mind  is  cast  afloat  u-pon 
an  open  sea  of  doubt."  Poor  Watson  !  he  meant  well, 
but,  alas !  by  his  teachings  "  the  foundations  of  all  truth 
are  loosened  and  unsettled;  yea,  the  very  fundamental 
truths  (I  had  supposed  that  these  were  included  in  all 
truth) ;  and  the  inquiring  mind  is  cast  afloat  upon  an  open 
sea  of  doubt."  (P.  18G.) 

Now,  on  the  part  of  the  reviewer,  this  apology  may  be 
very  kind,  but  we  respectfully  decline  its  accejitance  ;  not 
only  because  the  charges  are  utterly  untrue,  and,  conse- 
quently, the  apology  uncalled  for,  but  because  we  consider 
it  little,  if  anything,  better  than  an  insult.  Mr.  Watson  is 
prejudged,  condemned,  and  ajjologizcd  for,  even  before  his 
case  is  examined.  A  certain  school  and  certain  men  are 
represented  as  holdhig  certain  views,  which  we  do  not  here 
pause  to  pronounce  right  or  wrong,  and  Watson  and  those 
men  arc  declared  to  be  disciples  of  this  school,  and  em})i- 
rics  and  sensationalists,  Avhose  principles  are  erroneous  in 
the  last  degree,  so  much  so  that  the  whole  "  landed,  as  in- 
deed it  must  inevitably  land,  in  pure  materialism."  Thus 
Watson  is  placed  in  company  with  these  men,  simply,  it 
would  seem,  that  Avith  them  he  may  be  condemned. 

It  is  necessary  just  here,  we  think,  to  give  some  atten- 
tion to  ajTpellations  and  terms,  in  the  use  of  which  the  re- 
viewer is  very  faulty.  He  assumes,  for  instance,  that  the 
appellations  sensationalist  and  em2yirie  are  intercliange- 
able,  as  being  of  synonymous  import.  Hence  the  school  to 
which  he  assumes  Watson  attaches  liimsclf,  he  denominates 
"the  sensational  or  empirical,"  and  is  iudifierent,  conse- 
quently, as  to  which  of  the  appellations  he  applies  to  Wat- 
son. He  should  know  that  these  appellations  are  not 
synonymous  and,  consequently,  not  interchangeable.  Em- 
piricism is  based  on  experience^  and  sensationalism  on  sen- 


AND  THE  EIBLE  DEFENDED. 


13 


sation  alone :  the  latter  is  what  Fichte  calls  "  the  dirt 
libilosophy."  "The  eraj^irical  philosophers,"  says  Bacon, 
"  are  like  pismires,  they  only  lay  up  and  use  their  store. 
The  rationalists  arc  like  the  spiders,  they  spin  all  out  of 
their  own  bowels.  But  give  me  a  philosopher,  who,  like 
the  bee,  hath  a  middle  foculty,  gathering  from  abroad,  but 
digesting  that  Avhich  is  gathered  by  his  own  virtue."  How 
much  Watson  resembles  the  bee  in  the  particulars  here 
specified  may  be  seen  in  the  facts  which  we  have  already 
stated,  and  will  be  seen  still  more  clearly  in  facts  to  bo 
stated  in  the  course  of  our  investigations ;  so  that  in  these 
particulars,  at  least,  Watson  is  one  of  those  philosojVuers 
Avhom  Bacon  so  much  admired.  Mr.  C.  is  also  at  fault  in 
using  certain  terms  as  though  their  meaning  were  fixed  and 
agreed  upon  by  philosophers  generally,  whereas  this  is  very 
far  from  being  the  fact.  Hence  Mr.  C.  has  no  right  to  con- 
clude Mr.  W.'s  views  merely  from  his  rejecting  or  indorsing 
those  terms ;  it  is  necessary  to  specify  the  sense  in  which 
he  understands  the  terms  indorsed  or  rejected,  seeing  dif- 
ferent philosophers  use  them  with  different  latitudes  of 
meaning. 

Intuition^  for  instance,  is  a  word  which  conveys  diftcr- 
ent  ideas,  as  used  by  different  philosophers.  As  it  is  used 
by  some,  neither  Locke  nor  Watson  would  object  to  it ; 
Avhile  they  utterly  reject  it  in  the  sense  in  which  others  uso 
it.  In  his  "  Essay  on  the  Human  Understanding,"  Locke 
says :  ^'  Sometimes  the  mind  jierccivos  the  agreement  or 
disagreement  of  two  ideas  immediately  by  themselves, 
without  the  intervention  of  any  ot^cr  ;  and  this,  I  think, 
we  may  call  intuitive  knowledge"."  He  gives  other  in- 
stances of  what  he  thinks  may  be  called  the  intuitive  ;  yet 
iVIr.  C.  represents  both  Locke  and  Watson  as  denying  all 
intuitive  beliefs."    Taylor,  in  his  "  Elements  of  Thought," 


14 


WATSOn's  TnEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


says :  "  What  we  know  or  comprehend,  as  soon  as  we  per- 
ceive or  attend  to  it,  we  are  said  to  know  by  intuition ; 
things  which  we  know  by  intuition  cannot  be  made  more 
certain  by  arguments  than  they  are  at  first.  We  know  by 
intuition  that  all  the  parts  of  a  thing  together  are  equal  to 
tlie  whole  of  it.  Axioms  are  propositions  kiiown  by  intui- 
tion.^^ 

"  Itituition  has  been  api)lied  by  Dr.  Beattie  and  others, 
not  only  to  the  power  by  which  we  perceive  the  truth  of 
the  axioms  of  geometry,  but  to  that  by  which  we  recognize 
the  authority  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  beUef,  Avhen  we 
hear  them  enunciated  in  language.  My  only  objection  to 
this  use  of  the  word  is,  that  it  is  a  dei>arture  from  coipmon 
practice ;  according  to  which,  if  I  be  not  mistaken,  the 
proper  objects  of  intuition  are  propositions  analogous  to 
the  axioms  prefixed  to  Euclid's  Elements.  In  some  other 
respects  this  innovation  might  perhaps  be  regarded  as  an 
improvement  on  the  very  limited  and  imperfect  vocabulary 
of  A\  hich  we  are  able  to  avail  ourselves  in  our  present 
discussion."  (Stewart's  "  Elements.") 

"  Perception  is  singular,  incomplex,  and  immediate,  i.  e., 
is  intuition.  When'  I  see  a  star,  or  hear  the  tones  of  a 
harp,  the  perceptions  are  immediate,  incomplex,  and  intui- 
tive. This  is  the  good  old  logical  meaning  of  the  word 
intuition.  In  our  pliilosophic  writings,  however,  intuitive 
and  iidiiilioii  liave  colne  to  be  applied  solely  to  proposi- 
tions; it  is  lu  ro  extended  to  the  first  elements  of  percep- 
tion, wlicnce  sik  Ii  propositions  spring.  Again,  intuition,  in 
English,  is  vi  slricU'd  to  perceptions  a  jyriori ;  but  the 
established  logical  use  and  wont  applies  the  word  to  every 
incomi)lcx  representation  whatever  ;  and  it  is  left  for  fur- 
ther and  more  dee))  iiuiuiry  to  ascertain  wiiat  intuitions  are 
founded  on  observation  and  experience,  and  what  arise 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


15 


from  d  2^f'iori  sources."  (Semple,  "  Introduction  to  Meta- 
pliys.  of  Ethics.")  According  to  this  philosopher  there  arc 
"  i/Uuitions "  which  "  are  founded  on  observation  and 
experience,"  but  it  requires  "  further  and  more  deep  in- 
quiry "  to  distinguish  them  and  such  as  "  arise  from  a 
2>riori  sources." 

"  Besides  its  original  and  proper  meanmg  (as  a  visual 
perception),"  says  Sir  William  Hamilton,  "  it  has  been 
employed  to  denote  a  kind  of  cq)j)rchensio?i  and  a  Icind 
of  judgment?'' 

"  Intuition^^''  says  Mansel,  "  is  used  in  the  extent  of  the 
German  Anschauung,  to  include  all  the  products  of  the 
perceptive  (external  or  internal)  and  imaginative  faculties  ; 
every  act  of  consciousness,  in  short,  of  which  the  imme- 
diate is  an  individual^  thing,  state,  or  act  of  mind,  pre- 
sented under  the  condition  of  distinct  existence  in  space 
or  time." 

Such  are  some  of  the  definitions  and  explanations  which 
diflerent  philosophers  give  us  of  that  thing  called  intuition, 
the  meaning  of  which  Mr.  C.  assumes  to  be  fixed  and 
agreed  upon  by  the  philosophers  who  use  it,  but  with  what 
reason  the  above  quotations  will  show ;  and,  Avhat  is  not 
less  marvellous,  he  is  not  only  confident  in  the  use  of  it 
himself,  but  is  quite  out  of  patience  with  Watson,  because 
the  views  of  that  writer  do  not  exactly  quadrate  with  his 
own  in  reference  to  the  use  of  a  term  to  which  philosophers 
attach  so  many  shades  of  meaning.  Ignoring  all  this, 
togetlicr  witli  tlic  foct  that  Locke  himself  sjiecifios  wliat  he 
says  may  Ijo  called  "  intuitive  knowledge,"  Mr.  C.  assures 
us  that  JMr.  AVatsou  teaches  that  "  reason  docs  not  appre- 
hend a  'priori^  self-evident,  necessary  truth."  AVhat  Mr. 
Watson  teaches  concerning  reason  we  shall  see  in  duo 
time  ;  at  present  wo  shall  only  glance  at  the  term  innate. 


16 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


leaving  the  other  leading  terms  to  be  taken  np  in  order  as 
we  shall  i:)roceed  with  our  investigations. 

Innate.  "There  is  a  great  deal  of  difference,"  says 
Locke,  "  between  an  innate  law  and  a  law  of  nature ; 
between  something  imprinted  on  our  minds  in  their  very 
original,  and  sometliing  that  we,  being  ignorant  ofj  may 
attain  to  the  knowledge  of  by  tlie  use  and  application  of 
our  natural  faculties.  And  I  think  they  equally  forsake 
the  truth  who,  running  into  contrary  extremes,  either 
aflirni  an  innate  law,  or  deny  that  there  is  a  law  knowable 
by  the  light  of  nature^  without  the  help  of  jiositive  reve- 
lation." 

The  following  from  Dr.  Rcid  seems  to  be  quite  in 
harmony  with  the  above  :  "  Of  the  various  powers  and 
faculties  we  possess,  there  are  some  which  nature  seems 
both  to  have  planted  and  reared,  so  as  to  have  left  nothing 
to  human  indusstry.  Such  are  the  powers  which  we  have 
in  common  witli  the  brutes,  and  which  are  necessary  to  the 
jireservation  of  the  individual,  or  the  continuance  of  the 
kind.  There  are  other  powers,  of  which  nature  hath  only 
planted  the  seeds  in  our.  minds,  but  liath  left  the  rearing 
of  them  to  human  culture."  AVhen  speaking  of  natural 
rights,  the  doctor  uses  innate  as  synonymous  with  natural. 

"  Among  modern  philosophers  it  would  be  difficult  to 
name  any  who  held  the  doctrine  in  tlie  form  in  which  it 
has  been  attacked  by  Locke.  In  calling  some  of  our  ideas 
innate  they  seem  merely  to  have  used  this  word  as  synony- 
mous with  natural,  and  applied  it,  as  Ilutclieson  tliinks 
the  ancients  did,  lo  certain  ideas  which  men,  as  human 
or  rational  InniiL^s,  ik  <■<  s.^ar'dy  and  nnivcrsalhj  entertain." 
(Fleming's  "  Vor.iliulnry  of  Philosophy.") 

"Though  it  a[)pe:irs  not  that  we  liaA'O  any  innate  ideas 
or  formed  notions  or  principles  laid  in  by  nature,  ante- 


AKD  THE  EIBLE  DEFENDED. 


17 


cedently  to  the  exercise  of  our  senses  or  unclerstanding ; 
yet  it  must  be  granted  that  we  were  born  with  the  natural 
faculty  whereby  wc  actually  discern  the  agreement  or 
disagreement  of  some  notions,  so  soon  as  we  have  the 
notions  themselves,  as,  that  we  can  or  do  think,  that  there- 
fore we  ourselves  are  ;  that  one  and  two  make  three,  that 
gold  is  not  silver,  nor  ice  formally  water ;  that  the  whole 
is  greater  than  its  part,  tfec,  and  if  we  should  set  ourselves 
to  do  it,  we  cannot  deliberately  and  seriously  doubt  of  its 
being  so.  This  we  may  call  intuitive  knowledge,  or  natural 
certainty  wrought  into  our  very  make  and  constitution." 
(Oldfield,  "  Essay  on  Reason.") 

The  above  quotations  will  suffice  to  show  with  what 
propriety  Mr.  C.  uses  these  terras  as  though  then-  meaning 
were  fixed  and  agreed  upon  by  philosophers.  Of  course 
tlie  arguments  and  objections  built  upon  such  assumptions 
are  futile  and  vain.  The  following  are  Mr.  C.'s  views  of 
man's  innate  or  intuitive  powers,  as  given  in  the  article 
imder  review ;  see  pages  183,  184,  197,  205,  and  200  : 

"  There  are  specific  forms  into  which  human  thought 
must  necessarily  develop  itself,  just  as  a  grain  of  wheat 
must  necessarily  develop  itself  into  '  the  blade,  and  the 
ear,  and  full  corn  in  the  ear,'  or  an  acorn  develoi)  into  the 
majestic  oak."  "  The  human  intelligence  is  con- 
figured and  correlated  to  eternal  princijiles  of  order,  and 
right,  and  good,  as  they  exist  in  the  Infinite  Intelligence. 
Man  is  the  ofispring  and  image  of  God.  And  when  a 
principle  or  an  act  is  a2>prehendcd  by  the  understanding, 
the  mind  passes  a  judgment  ujion  the  relation  of  that 
principle  or  act  to  tlicse  laws  of  order  and  right  and  good." 

 "  Man  is  so  constituted  by  the  great  Architect  of 

his  mental  being — God  has  imposed  upon  his  intelUgence 
such-  laws  of  thought  as  determhie  him  to  form  the  idea  of 


18  watson's  theological  institutes 


God,  of  right  and  wrong,  of  duty,  and  of  accountability." 

 "As  the  vital  and  rudimental  germ  of  the  oak  is 

contained  in  the  acorn — as  it  is  quickened  and  excited  to 
activity  by  the  exteraal  conditions  of  moisture,  light,  and 
heat,  and  is  fully  developed  under  the  fixed  and  determina- 
tive laws  of  vegetative  life — so  the  germ  of  the  idea  of  God 
is  present  in  every  human  mind  as  the  intuitions  of  pure 
reason ;  these  intuitions  are  excited  into  energy  by  our 
experimental  and  historic  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  laws 
of  the  universe  ;  and  these  facts  and  intuitions  are  devel- 
oped into  scientific  form  by  the  necessary  laws  of  the 

intellect."  "On  contemplating  the  acts  of  a  volim- 

tary  agent  we  immediately  apprehend  them  as  having  a 
moral  quality.  The  mind  intuitively  ai^prehcnds  them  as 
right  or  wrong,  and  spontaneously  approves  or  condemns 
them.  This  distinction  in  the  moral  quality  of  actions  is 
felt  to  be  independent  of  the  mind  which  perceives  it,  and 
of  any  mutabjo  condition  of  things.  Good  and  evil,  right 
and  wrong  are  immutable.  The  distinction  between  them 
must  be  the  same  everywhere,  at  all  times,  and  to  all 
beings — to  God,  to  angels,  and  to  men.  It  is  as  impossible 
to  conceive  that  there  are  intelligences  to  whom  falsehood 
can  appear  a  virtue  and  justice  a  vice,  as  that  there  are 
intelligences  to  whom  two  and  two  equal  five,  or  to  whom 
the  properties  of  the  triangle  can  be  more  or  less  than  they 
are  to  us.  Accomjianying  this  perception  of  the  immutable 
distinction  between  virtue  and  vice,  we  have  the  con- 
sciousness of  its  being  our  duty  to  avoid  the  one  and 
perform  the  other.  We  feel  upon  us  an  obligation  which 
is  imperative.  We  have  also  an  abiding  conviction  tbat 
moral  good  is  rewardable,  and  that  vice- merits  jjunishment. 
And,  finally,  we  have  a  conscious  apprehension  of  a  future 
retribution." 


AND  THE  BIELE  DEFENDED. 


19 


Let  us  try  aud  condense  this  marvellous  accumulation 
of  marvellous  assertions,  that  the  whole  may  be  seen  at  a 
glance. 

The  human  mind  is  configured  and  correlated  to  eternal 
principles  of  order,  and  right,  and  good  as  they  exist  in  the 
Infinite  Mind.  God  has  imposed  upon  the  human  mind 
such  laws  of  thought  as  determine  it  to  form  the  idea  of 
God,  of  right  and  icrong,  of  duty  and  of  accountability. 
The  mind  intuitively  apprehends  human  actions  as  right 
or  wrong,  and  spontaneously  appyroves  or  condemns  them. 
And  all  this  is  independent  of  the  mind  which  perceives  it, 
and  of  any  mutable  eoridition  of  things.  It  is  as  impossible 
to  conceive  that  there  are  intelligences  to  whom  falsehood 
can  appear  a  virtue  and  justice  a  vice,  as  that  there  are  in- 
telligences to  %ohom  two  and  tico  equal  five.  And  these 
intuitions  of  pure  reason  are  present  in  every  human  mind 
as  the  vital  and  rudimental  germ  of  the  oak  is  contained 
i7i  the  acorn.  And  as  the  latter  is  fully  developed  under 
the  fixed  and  determinative  laws  of  vegetative  life,  so  these 
intuitions  of  pure  reason  in  every  human  mind  are  excited 
into  energy  by  our  expierimetital  and  historic  knowledge  of 
the  facts  and  laws  of  the  universe,  and  these  facts  and 
intuitions  are  developed  into  scientific  form  by  the  neces- 
sary laws  of  the  intellect. 

Here  is  a  specimen  of  the  transcendental,  the  innate, 
the  intuitive,  or  what  you  please  to  call  it.  And  our 
reviewer  "-can  ill  conceal  his  regrets"  that  Mr,  Watson 
did  not  thus  believe  and  teach,  instead  of  "  degrading  our 
reason,  and  casting  doubt  upon  the  veracity  of  our  focul- 
ties,"  so  that  "the  foundations  of  all  truth  are  loosened 
and  imsettled."  In  short,  teaching  so  erroneous  that  it 
"  landed,  as  indeed  it  must  inevitably  land,  in  pure  materi- 
alism." 


20 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


We  beg  to  assure  our  brother  that  Ave  arc  very  far 
from  being  prepared  to  substitute  the  above,  or  anything 
like  it,  for  the  solid  Scriptural  teachings  of  Watson's  Insti- 
tutes, and  we,  too,  "  can  ill  conceal  our  regrets  "  that  such 
a  substitute  should  be  olFcred.  You  may  talk  as  loudly 
as  you  please  about  "  the  intuitions  of  pure  reason,"  "  the 
facts  and  laws  of  the  universe,"  and  "the  necessary  laws  of 
the  intellect,"  combinedly  and  necessarily  producing  the 
knowledge  and  faith  you  sjaeak  of ;  and  that  as  necessarily 
as  the  majestic  oak  is  produced  from  the  acorn,  under  the 
fixed  and  determinative  laws  of  vegetative  life  ;  but  to  all 
such  assertions,  however  loud  and  confident,  the  facts  of 
experience  and  observation,  the  facts  of  history,  both 
ancient  and  modern,  and  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  give 
this  simple  reply :  It  is  not  true  !  It  is  also  a  fact,  Ave 
cls^m,  that  the  uniform  tendency  of  fallen  man  is  downAvard 
Avithout  the  intervention  of  a  svpernatural  poicer :  and  it 
too  often  happens  that  his  course  is  still  onward  from  bad 
to  Averse,  uotAvithstanding  that  power  is  exerted  with 
amazing  energy.  That  such  statements  as  those  quoted 
above  should  be  made  in  the  face  of  these  glaring  facts, 
and  so  completely  at  variance  with  them,  is  truly  mar- 
vellous. Moreover,  if  our  knoAvledge  and  faith  are  matured 
into  scientific  form  by  fixed  and  determinative  laws,  as 
necessarily  as  the  majestic  oak  is  matured  from  the  acorn 
by  the  same  or  similar  laAA's  ;  if  God  has  imposed  upon  the 
human  intelligence  such  laws  of  thought  as  determine  us  to 
form  the  idea  of  God,  of  right  and  wrong,  of  duty  and 
accountability  ;  if  the  human  intelligence  is  configured  and 
correlated  to  eternal  principles  of  order,  and  right,  and 
good  as  they  exist  in  the  Infinite  Intelligence,  the  teachings 
of  Watson  and  those  of  his  reviewer  are  alike  superfluous 
and  useless ;  seeing  our  knoAvledge  and  faith  are  inevitable 

* 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


21 


results  of  inevitable  causes,  and,  consequently,  as  destitute 
of  virtue  as  the  majestic  oak,  being  produced  by  the  same 
or  similar  laws.  In  short,  if  what  the  reviewer  says  be  tr»e, 
if  the  knowledge  and  faith  specified  be  the  inevitable  results 
of  inevitable  causes,  it  will  follow  that  the  old  saying  is  true 
after  all,  "  Whatever  is,  is  right !"  Or,  if  there  is  anything 
wrong,  it  is  not  iu  man  any  more  than  it  is  in  the  "  majestic 
oak,"  seeing  the  growth  of  the  one,  and  the  knowledge  and 
faith  of  the  other,  are  alike  the  inevitable  results  of  inevitable 
causes,  which  causes  are  "  fixed  and  determinative  laws." 

We  regret  that  the  universal  and  irresistible  laws  of 
which  the  reviewer  speaks  have  not  been  more  powerfully 
felt  in  Wyandotte,  for  it  is  quite  certain  that  there  are 
many  here  whose  knotolcdge  and  faith  are  very  far  from 
being  what  is  predicated  of  universal  mankind  in  the  above 
statements  of  the  reviewer.  And,  what  is  still  more 
strange,  there  are  those  here  who  teach  tJiat  falsehood  is  a 
virtue  !  And  they  believe  that  the  Council  of  Constance, 
which  affirmed  this  very  thing,  was  infallible.  Yea,  they 
believe  that  "  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics."  And 
they  believe  that  the  Emperor  Sigismund  and  the  Council 
of  Constance  did  a  truly  virtuous  act  when,  acting  upon 
this  doctrine,  they  betrayed  and  burnt  John  Huss.  And 
they  believe,  doubtless,  that  the  act  of  the  Bishop  of  Landy 
was  a  truly  virtuous  one,  when,  in  the  name  of  the  Coun- 
oil,  he  thus  praised  the  emperor  for  falsehood,  treachery, 
and  murder :  "  This  most  holy  and  goodly  labor  was  re- 
served only  for  thee,  O  most  noble  prince  !  Upon  thee  only 
doth  it  lie,  to  whom  the  whole  rule  and  ministration  of 
justice  is  given.  Wherefore,  thou  hast  estabhshed  thy 
praise  and  renown  ;  even  by  the  mouths  of  babes  and 
sucklings  thy  praise  shall  be  celebrated  for  evermore."  All 
this  they  most  steadfastly  believe!   Ilcnc^),  it  is  clearly 


22 


Watson's  theological  institutes 


possible  to  believe  that  falsehood  is  a  virtue,  at  least  when 
the  falsehood  is  told  for  the  good  of  "  Mother  Church." 
A*  to  whether  these  are  "  primitive  beliefs,"  we  leave  the 
reviewer  to  decide.  In  further  proof,  however,  of  "  this 
perception  of  the  immutable  distinction  between  virtue  and 
vice,"  and  which  "  must  be  the  same  everywhere,  at  all 
times  and  to  all  beings — to  God,  to  angels,  and  to  men ; " 
we  will  add  two  more  specimens  of  these  "necessary  be- 
liefs," these  "  necessary  intuitions,"  which  indicate  "  the 
spontaneous  energy  of  the  human  mind,"  in  forming  the 
idea  of  God,  of  right  and  wrong,  of  duty  and  accounta- 
bility, and  of  a  future  retribution." 

In  1571  and  1572,  Charles  IX  of  France  and  his  great 
men  of  state  made  certain  flattering  proposals  to  the 
Protestants,  and  confirmed  those  proposals  by  the  most 
solemn  vows  and  oaths.  By  these  means  they  got  the 
Protestants  into  their  power,  and  slew  of  them,  in  Paris 
alone,  some  ten  thousand,  and  in  all  France  some  thirty 
thousand.  Now,  this  falsehood,  this  perjury,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  most  horrible  murder  that  history  records,  was 
considered  so  virtuous  that  God  Almighty,  as  Well  as  the 
king  of  the  French,  was  prxiised  in  the  most  solemn  man- 
ner, particularly  at  Paris  and  Rome,  where  Te  Deum  was 
sung  and  high  mass  oflered,  accompanied  by  the  ringing  of 
bells  and  other  demonstrations  of  joy.  So  firmly  do  they 
believe  the  doctrine  that  "  heretics  ought  to  be  condemned 
and  executed,  notwithstanding  the  most  solemn  assurances 
to  the  contrary."  In  other  words,  so  firmly  do  they  "  be- 
lieve that  falsehood  is  a  virtue."  We  will  give  another 
specimen  of  "  the  intuitions  of  pure  reason ; "  it  may  be 
found  in  Mr.  Wesley's  Miscellaneous  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  818. 
Mr.  W.  says  :  "  Some  time  since,  a  Romish  priest  came  to 
one  I  knew,  and,  after  talking  with  her  largely,  broke  out : 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


23 


'  You  are  no  lieretic,  you  have  tlie  exi^ericnce  of  a  real 
Cliristiau ! '  And  '  would  you,'  she  asked, '  burn  me  alive  ? ' 
He  said,  '  God  forbid ! — unless  it  were  for  the  good  of  the 
church!'"  Such  was  "the  spontaneous  energy"  of  that 
priest's  mind,  and  so  accurate  were  his  "  necessary  intui- 
tions "  in  forming  "  the  idea  of  God,  of  right  and  wrong, 
of  duty,  and  of  qccountabiUty ! "  Nor  will  it  mend^  the 
matter  at  all  to  say  that  these  i^arties  were  not  sincere,  for 
that  would  indicate  a  state  still  more  at  variance  with  the 
doctrine  of  "  necessary  intuitions  and  beliefs,"  defended  by 
the  reviewer,  if  any  state  could  be  more  at  variance  with 
it.  But  the  fact  is,  multitudes  of  Roman  CathoUcs  do 
beUeve  these  teachings  of  their  church,  viz.,  that  "  no  faith 
is  to  be  kept  with  a  heretic ; "  in  other  words,  that  "  false- 
hood is  a  virtue  ;  "  for  they  hold  that  "  the  end  sanctifies 
the  deed."  But  Roman  Catholics  are  not  the  only  people 
who  beheve  that  "  falsehood  is  a  virtue,"  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances ;  there  are  many  Protestants  who  believe  the 
doctrine  and  practise  it;  in  justification  of  which  I  have 
heard  the  following  adduced.  Some  shipwrecked  marin- 
ers were  cast  upon  a  certain  island,  among  savages  ;  after  a 
long  time  and  much  suflTering,  a  ship  cast  anchor  off  the 
island ;  the  savages  prepared  their  canoes  to  go  to  the  ves- 
sel, but  would  not  let  the  white  man  go  tUl  he  promised 
that  he  would  not  disclose  the  fact  that  there  were  other 
white  men  on  the  island,  and  also  that  he  would  return 
with  them  ;  on  these  conditions  he  was  allowed  to  accom- 
pany the  savages  to  the  vessel ;  he  did  disclose  the  fact, 
and  intended  to  do  so  when  he  promised  the  contrary ; 
neither  did  he  return  with  them,  nor  did  he  intend  to  re- 
turn when  he  promised  to  do  so.  Moreover,  he  obtained 
the  release  of  his  companions  in  captivity  and  misery,  as 
well  as  his  own ;  and  all  this  by  telling  a  falsehood.,  which, 


24 


watson's  theological  institutes 


consequently,  was  declared  to  be  a  virtue !  It  follows, 
then,  tbat  even  this  is  not  an  impossibility :  "  there  are  in- 
telligences to  whom  falsehoods  can  appear  to  be  a  virtue  1 " 
nor  is  it  necessary  to  go  to  the  heathen,  cither  ancient  or 
modern,  to  find  them.  And,  what  we  think  is  much  worse, 
there  are,  and  ever  have  been,  those  who  justify  murder  in 
the  same  way  that  they  justify  falsehood  ;  and  this  fact  is 
established  by  the  lips  of  the  Most  High  in  the  following 
words  :  "  The  time  cometh  that  whosoever  killeth  you  will 
think  that  he  doeth  God  service."  Such  are  some  of  the 
beliefs  (call  them  i7ituitive,  primitive,  or  what  you  please) 
of  "  intelligences "  Adiich  are  declared  to  be  "configured 
and  correlated  to  eternal  principles  of  order,  and  right,  and 
good  as  they  exist  in  the  Infinite  Intelligence." 

Before  we  proceed  farther,  we  will  try  to  fix  the  jioint 
or  points  in  dispute;  for  on  page  196,  Mr.  C.  seems  to  make 
a  diflferent  issue  from  tbat  which  is  obviously  comprehended 
in  the  quotations  given  above.  On  the  above  page  he 
says:  "The  question  is  not  how  the  idea  of  God  first  be- 
came known  to  man,  or  how  it  now  becomes  known, 
not  whether  he  has  it  from  the  Bible,  or  from  tradition, 
or  independent  of  any  traditional  suggestion."  All 
these,  wo  are  told,  "  are  irrelevant  to  the  main  issue." 
What !  the  question  is  not  how  the  idea  first  became 
known,  or  how  it  now  becomes  knoATO,  or  whether  Ave 
have  it  from  the  Bible.  Wo  respectfully  bog  to  differ. 
These  questions  certainly  are  not  irrelevant  to  the  main 
issue,  for  the  question  respects  man's  competency  to  origi- 
nate the  idea ;  it  is  admitted  that  when  the  idea  is  once 
obtained,  evidences  of  its  truth  are  clearly  seen  in  the 
works  of  creation  and  providence.  But  we  will  hear  what 
is  declared  to  bo  the  issue. 

Can  man,  from  the  light  of  nature,  develojj  a  proof  of 


AJSTD  TIIE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


25 


God's  existence  which  shall  be  logical,  conclusive,  a7id  self- 
sufficient  ?  The  main  question  is  as  to  the  competency  of 
human  reason,  from  the  facts  of  the  universe  and  the  in- 
tuition of  the  human  mind,  to  demonstrate  the  existence 
of  God. 

Neither  have  we  here  a  clear  exhibit  of  the  doctrine  set 
forth  in  the  quotations  which  Ave  have  given  and  shall  give, 
for  we  are  not  told  whether  it  is  natural  or  regenerate  man 
that  is  here  spoken  of,  or  whether  it  is  natural  or  enlight- 
ened and  graciously  assisted  reason  that  is  intended.  So 
that  arguing  from  these  premises,  Ave  are  still  working  in 
the  dark,  for  certainly  it  will  not  be  claimed  that  Watson 
denies  the  competency  of  enlightened  reason,  already  in 
possession  of  the  idea  of  a  God,  to  deduce  proofs  of  Ilis 
being  from  the  facts  of  the  universe.  Certainly  there  can  be 
no  controversy  Avith  Watson  on  this  point.  In  vol.  i,  pp.  271 
and  212,  his  position  is  thus  clearly  stated  :  "  Matter  of  fact 
does  not  therefore  support  the  notion  that  the  existence  of 
God  is  discoverable  by  the  unassisted  faculties  of  man :  and 
there  is,  I  conceive,  very  slender  reason  to  admit  the  ab- 
stract possibility."  "The  abimdant  rational  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  God,  which  may  now  be  so  easily  collect- 
ed, and  which  is  so  convincing,  is  therefore  no  proof  that 
without  instruction  from  heaven  the  human  mind  Avould 
ever  haA^e  made  the  discovery."  It  is  folly,  then,  to  under- 
take to  iM'ove  what  Watson  never  denied,  and  to  ignore  the 
real  question ;  to  make  an  issue  that  he  has  not  made,  and 
leave  the  real  issue  untouched  ;  it  is  Avorse  than  folly. 
Neither  is  the  question  in  dispute  confined  to  the  mere 
idea  of  a  God ;  it  comprehends  man's  mental  and  moral 
powers  :  nor  is  the  question  Avhat  these  poAvers  are  or  may 
be  graciously,  but  what  they  are  naturally  and  necessarily. 
What  they  are  or  may  be  by  supernatural  communications 
2 


26  avatson's  theological  institctes 

is  a  question  which  certainly  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
true  issue  ;  no  man  has  more  exalted  views  of  the  all-suf- 
ficiency of  such  supernatural  communications  than  Richard 
Watson,  nor  has  any  man,  we  think,  more  exalted  views  of 
the  dignity  and  glory  to  which  man  may  be  raised  by  this 
gracious  and  supernatural  aid.  The  question  is  not  whe- 
ther the  book  of  nature  develops  ideas  of  God's  being  and 
attributes,  but  whether  poor,  blind,  fallen  man  can  read  it 
without  gracious  assistance ;  not  whether  a  well  instructed. 
Christian  can  read  it.  Declaring  that  to  be  of  nature 
which  is  solely  of  grace,  stealing  from  Jews  and  Christians 
the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  the  things  of  God,  and  then 
giving  the  natural,  unassisted  powers  of  man  credit  for  the 
discovery,  are  the  points  to  which  "Watson  objects,  and  of 
which  he  complains.  The  question  is  not,  we  repeat,  Avhat 
man  is  or  may  be  gracioitsly,  but  what  he  is  naturally  and 
necessarily,  v/hat  he  is  "  constituted  by  the  great  Architect 
of  his  mental  being,"  unaided  by  a  gracious  revelation ; 
and  that,  too,  after  and  despite  the  fall ;  yea,  and  independ- 
ent of  any  act  or  choice  of  his  own  for  or  against.  For  it 
is  claimed  that  "God  has  imposed  upon  his  intelligence 
such  laws  of  thought  as  determine  him  to  form  the  idea  of* 
God,  of  right  and  wrong,  of  duty,  and  of  accountability." 
(P.  184.)  "And  this  distinction  of  the  quality  of  moral  ac- 
tions is  felt  to  be  independent  of  the  mind  which  perceives 
it."  (P.  205.)  This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  very  difierent  from 
what  Mr.  C,  on  page  19G,  represents  to  be  the  true  issue. 
•Wheri  he  tells  us  that  reason  can  draw  such  and  such  con- 
clusions from  the  facts  of  the  universe,  ho  really  makes  no 
issue  at  all,  unless  he  tells  us  what  reason  it  is  he  speaks  of 
graciously  assisted  or  miassisted  reason,  enlightened  oi 
wienlightened  reason  ;  for,  I  repeat,  there  is  no  dispute,  at 
least  no  room  for  dispute,  with  Watson  in  regard  to  en- 
lightoied  reason. 


ICSD  TnE  BIPLE  DEFENDED. 


27 


To  prevent  the  iiossibility  of  mistake  as  to  the  true 
issue,  and  that  it  may  be  seen  we  are  not  fighting  a  man  of 
straw,  we  will  give  a  few  more  qnotatlons. 

On  p.  196,  where  he  clefin«s  his  position,  as  stated 
above,  Mr.  C.  says :  "  Instead,  then,  of  our  knowledge  of 
God  resting  upon  revelation  alone,  we  regard  the  idea  of 
God  as  a  phenomenon  of  the  universal  human  intelligence 
It  is  in  all  minds  in  which  reason  is  in  any  considerable  de- 
gree developed,  and  is  there  as  a  necessary  truth."  This 
knowledge,  observe,  "  is  in  all  minds  as  a  necessary  trutli.'''' 
So  Mr.  Cosh,  "  The  idea  of  God,  the  belief  in  God,  may  be 
justly  represented  as  native  to  man."  The  propositions  on 
p.  199  may  be  thus  summed  uj) : 

"  The  understanding  gives,  as  the  necessary  '  concepts,' 
the  *  known  '  primitive  cognitions." 

"  The  reason  gives,  as  the  necessary  antecedents  of  the 
primitive  cognitions  of  the  understanding,  '  the  implied ' 
primitive  beliefs." 

"  The  judgment,  or  logical  faculty,  gives  as  the  necessary 
relation  between  these  understanding  conceptions  and 
these  ideas  of  pure  reason,  '  the  deduced '  primitive  judg- 
ments or  axioms.'''' 

We  think  it  deserves  at  least  a  passing  notice,  that 
these  mental  phenomena  are  so  mathematically  exact  that 
"the  known  primitive  cognitions"  are  just  6,  the  "implied 
primitive  beliefs,"  G,  and  "the  deduced  primitive  judg- 
ments," 6.  And  all  these  act  so  harmoniously  and  with 
such  combined  power  that  the  soul  of  which  they  are  the 
phenomena  is  guided  directly  and  inevitably  to  "  a  moral 
governor — A  God."    Hence  he  adds : 

"In  each  of  the  above  propositions  we  have  an  t/zider- 
standinff  perception — '  a  form  '  under  which  the  mind  ne- 
cessarily conceives  the  facts  of  external  and  internal  per- 


28 


"WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTrrUTES 


ception ;  we  have  also  an  idea  ofjnire  reason — an  implied 
or  im2)licit  belief,  arising  sjjontaneously  in  the  human  mind 
in  presence  of  the  understanding  conception  ;  and  lastly, 
we  have  an  analytic  judgment — the  affirmation  of  a  neces- 
sary and  universal  relation  between  the  two."  (P.  200.) 
"  In  early  infancy  this  principle  of  intuitive  logic  is  de- 
veloped." (P.  201.)  "So  conclusive  is  this  intuitive  logic 
that  no  increase  of  proof  can  make  it  clearer,  and  no 
argument  can  make  it  stronger  than  when  first  appre- 
hended." "  From  the  consideration  of  second  and  physi- 
cal causes  we  are  carried  forward  to  the  idea,  of  an  intelli- 
gent cause."  On^pages  205  and  206  we  have  sjDecifications 
ot  the  moral  intuitions,  by  which  we  have  clear  and  una- 
voidable perceptions  "  of  the  immutable  distinction  be- 
tween virtue  and  vice,"  and  "  of  our  duty  to  avoid  the  one 
and  perform  the  other.  We  have  also  an  abiding  convic- 
tion that  moral  good  is  rewardable,  and  that  vice  is  punish- 
able. And,  finally,  we  have  a  conscious  apprehension  of  a 
future  retribution."  And  "  these  moral  intuitions  are  con- 
firmed by  our  exj^erience.  The  actions  which  by  the  con- 
science are  pronounced  right,  and  as  such  approved,  are 
found  to  be  productive  of  happiness  ;  and  the  actions 
which  by  the  same  faculty  are  pronounced  to  be  wrong 
and  condemned,  are  found  to  be  productive  of  misery." 
So  true  and  accurate  are  the  workings  of  all  the  mental 
and  moral  powers  of  all  men  naturally.,  after  and  despite 
the  fall!  We  may  just,  however,  observe  in  passing,  that 
Paul's  conscience,  before  his  conversion  at  least,  was  an  ex- 
ception, for  there  were  many  actions  which  his  conscience 
pronounced  right,  which  certainly  were  not  productive  of 
happiness  ;  and  we  think  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  doc- 
trines and  practice  of  the  Christians,  which  the  same  con- 
Bcience  pi'onounced  wrong,  were  not  productive  of  misery. 


AND  TIIE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


29 


But  vre  will  let  that  pass  for  the  pi-esent,  till  we  give  two 
more  quotations,  from  other  sources  however,  but  equally 
illustrative  of  the  same  transcendental  philosophy,  and  de- 
signed to  keep  the  real  issue  clearly  before  ns;  then  we 
will  be  prepared  to  couibat  the  error ;  and  its  advocates 
Avill  not  be  able  to  say,  "  You  misrepresent  us." 

"  Schelling  and  Hegel,"  says  Jilurdock,  "  claimed  to 
have  discovered  the  absolute  identity  of  the  objectiVe  and 
subjective  in  human  knowledge,  or  of  things  and  human 
conceptions  of  them.  And  hence,  with  them  transcendent- 
alism claims  to  have  a  true  knowledge  of  all  things,  mate- 
rial and  immaterial,  human  and  divine,  so  far  as  the  mind 
is  capable  of  knowing ;  and  in  this  sense  the  woi'd  tran- 
scendentalism is  now  most  used." 

The  following  is  in  harmony  with  the  preceding  quota- 
tions, and  came,  doubtless,  from  the  same  source,  the  tran. 
scendental  school :  "  We  need  a  revelation  of  mercy,  not  of 
justice  ;  I  learn  justice  in  my  own  breast."  This  is  one  of 
several  notes  which  the  writer  took  while  listening  to  Dr. 
Dempster  preach  in  the  Woodward  Avenue  Church,  Detroit, 
29th  April,  1860.  "VYe  assure  the  doctor  we  do  not  Avish 
to  have  justice  administered  to  iis  out  of  the  breast  of  the 
natural  man,  unassisted  by  revelation  :  from  such  justice, 
"  good  Lord,  deliver  us  !  "  Nor  will  we  go  there  to  learn 
justice. 

In  the  quotations  here  given,  we  have  a  clear  view  of 
the  true  issue  ;  in  them  any  one  may  see  at  a  glance  what 
in  this  controversy  is  asserted  by  the  one  party  and  denied 
by  the  other  as  to  what  man  is  mentally  and  rtioralhj  in  his 
natural  state  /  as  to  what  he  is  necessarily  and  Knivcrsally  ; 
as  to  what  the  natural  reason  can  and  cannot  do  iiideijcnd- 
ent  of  supernatural  assistance,  independent  of  revelation. 
Within  this  compass  may  be  found  everything  that  legiti- 


30 


avatson's  theological  institutes 


raately  belongs  to  this  controversy.  With  regard  to  the 
doctrines  necessarily  involved,  less  or  more,  by  the  position 
of  either  party,  they  take  a  wider  range,  including  more 
particularly  the  doctrine  of  the  fall^  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement^  and  the  doctrine  of  the  spirifs  agency  in  tlic 
salvation  of  the  soul.  For,  if  the  natural  man  is  all  that 
he  is  declared  to  be  in  the  above  quotations,  then  we  must 
certainly  take  a  different  view  of  these  three  leading  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  from  that  which  lias  been  entertained 
hitherto  by  those  who  are  denominated  the  orthodox. 

"We  will  now  glance  at  the  three  leading  terms  in  JMr. 
C.'s  three  grand  propositions,  viz.,  understanding^  judgment, 
and  reason.  As  with  terms  already  noticed,  so  with  these, 
Mr.  C.  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  meaning  Avhicli  he 
attaches  to  them  is  fixed  and  agreed  upon  by  philosophers 
and  theologians ;  takes  it  for  granted  that  each  of  these 
mental  faculties  does  the  work  that  he  here  assigns  to  it ; 
that  the  understanding  gives  the  primitive  cognitions,  the 
judgment  gives  the  primitive  judgments,  and  the  reason 
the  primitive  beUefs  to  tlie  extent  claimed  :  and  all  this 
NECESSAKiLY !  Philosophcrs,  however,  are  very  far  from 
being  thus  agreed  as  to  these  mental  faculties,  as  the  fol- 
lowing quotations  will  show ;  and  they  will  show,  too,  w^e 
think,  how  little  reason  Mr.  C.  has  for  the  great  confidence 
which  lie  evidently  has  in  his  conclusions,  though  derived 
from  such  premises. 

The  Understanding.  "  Perhaps,"  says  Coleridge,  "the 
safer  use  of  the  term,  for  general  purposes,  is  to  take  it  as 
the  mind,  or  rather  as  the  man  himself  considered  as  a 
concipient  as  well  as  a  percipient  being,  and  reason  as  a 
power  supervening."  And  immediately  after  he  says,  "it 
is  the  whole  spontaneity  of  the  representing  mind." 

"The  reason  and  the  understanding,"  says  Whewell, 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


31 


"  have  not  been  steadily  distinguished  by  English  writers. 
The  understanding  is  the  faculty  of  applying  principles, 
how.ever  obtained." 

"  I  use  the  term  understanding,"  says  Sir  Wm.  Hamil- 
ton, "not  for  the  noetic  faculty,  intellect  proper,  but  for 
the  dionoetic,  or  discursive  faculty,  in  its  widest  significa- 
tion." 

"  Sir  J.  Mackintosh,"  says  Haywood,  "prefers  the'term 
intellect  to  that  of  understanding  as  the  source  of  concep- 
tions." "The  word  verstancV'  [understanding],  says  the 
same  writer,  "  is  used  occasionally  as  being  synonymous 
with  vernuft "  [reason]. 

The  Judgment.  Our  j  udg-ments,  according  to  Aristotle, 
are  either  ^yrohlematical,  assertive,  or  demoiistrahle ;  or, 
in  other  words,  the  results  of  opinion,  of  belief,  or  of 
science.  Locke  says :  "  Judgment  implies  the  comparison 
of  two  or  more  ideas."  Dr.  Reid  says  he  "  aj^plies  the 
word  judgment  to  every  determination  of  the  mind  con- 
cerning what  is  true  or  false."  He  adds :  "  One  of  the  most 
important  distinctions  of  our  judgments  is,  that  some  of 
them  are  intuitive,  othei-s  grounded  on  argument."  Thomp- 
son says  :  "  Judgments  are  analytic,  synthetic,  and  tautolo- 
goKS.^^ 

The  Reason.  "  There  is  one  faculty,"  says  Aristotle, 
"  by  which  man  comprehends  and  embodies  in  his  belief 
first  principles,  which  cannot  be  proved,  which  he  must 
receive  from  some  authority ;  there  is  another  by  which, 
when  a  new  fact  is  laid  before  him,  he  can  show  that  it  is 
in  conformity  Avith  some  principle  possessed  before.  One 
process  resembles  the  collection  of  materials  for  building, 
the  other  their  orderly  arrangement.  One  is  intuition,  the 
other  logic.  In  other  words,  one  is  reason  in  its  highest 
sense,  the  other  understanding.''''  (See  Sewell,  "  Christ. 
Mor.,"  chap.  21.) 


32 


avatson's  theological  institutes 


"  Anselm  considers  the  facts  of  consciousness  under  the 
fourfold  arrangement  of  sensibility,  -will,  reason,  and  intel- 
ligence, and  claims  that  the  last  two  are  not  identical." 
(Fleming's  "Vocabulary.") 

"  This  word,"  says  Whately,  "  is  used  to  signify  all  the 
intellectual  powers  collectively  ;  2,  those  intellectual  pow- 
ers in  which  man  differs  from  brutes ;  3,  the  faculty  of 
carrying  on  the  operation  of  reasoning." 

"  What  some  call  the  intuitive  reason  and  the  discursive 
reason,  S.  T.  Coleridge  calls  the  reason  and  the  understand- 
ing, and  says  the  latter  is  of  the  nature  of  the  instinct  of 
animals."   (Fleming's  "Vocabulary.") 

^'Iieaso?i,"  says  Cousin,  "  is  a  revelation,  a  necessary 
and  universal  revelation  which  is  wanting  to  no  man,  and 
which  enlightens  every  man  on  his  coming  into  the  world, 
Meason  is  the  necessary  mediator  between  God  and  man,  the 
Xoyos  of  Pythagoras  and  Plato,  the  "Word  made  flesh,  which 
serves  as  the  interjM-eter  of  God,  and  the  teacher  of  man, 
divine  and  human  at  the  same  time.  It  is  not,  indeed,  the 
absolute  God  in  his  majestic  individuality,  but  his  manifes- 
tation in  spirit  and  in  truth  ;  it  is  not  the  Being  of  beings ; 
but  it  is  the  revealed  God  of  the  human  race."  The  same 
author  is  thus  quoted  by  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton  :  "  Reason  is  a 
revelation  of  God  in  man  ;  the  ideas  of  which  we  are  con- 
scious belong  not  to  us,  but  to  absolute  intelligence."  It 
has  been  well  observed  that  the  root  and  germ  of  all  this 
is  Plato's  doctrine,  that  human  reason  is  a  ray  of  the 
Divine  reason.  It  is  this  notion,  doubtless,  that  led  to  a 
denial  of  the  individuality  of  the  human  soul.  "The 
opinion,"  says  Mr.  Watson  (vol.  i,  p,  21),  "that  the  human 
Boul  is  a  part  of  God,  enclosed  for  a  short  time  in  matter, 
but  still  a  portion  of  his  essence,  runs  through  much  of  the 
Greek  philosophy.    It  is  still  more  ancient  than  that,  and, 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


33 


at  the  present  day,  the  same  opinion  destroys  all  idea  of 
accountability  among  those  Avho  in  India  follow  the  Bra- 
minical  system.  '  The  human  sonlis  God,  and  the  acts  of  the 
human  soul  arc,  therefore,  the  acts  of  God.'  This  is  the 
popular  argument  by  which  their  crimes  are  justified."  It 
is  easy  to  see  that  the  above  notions  of  the  ancient  heathen 
and  modern  Brahmins,  and  the  following  from  Cousin,  are 
one  in  origin,  nature,  and  tendency:  "Reason  or' intelli- 
gence is  not  individual,  is  not  ours,  is  not  even  human  ;  it 
is  absolute,  it  is  divine."  The  following  notions,  too,  have 
a  common  parentage  with  the  above  :  "  The  very  ancient 
notion,"  says  Mr.  Watson  (vol.  i,  p.  22),  "of  an  absorption 
of  souls  back  again  into  the  Divine  Essence,  was  with  the 
ancients  what  we  know  it  to  be  now  in  the  metaphysical 
system  of  the  Hindoos,  a  denial  of  individual  immortality." 
Thus  error  leads  to  error,  even  as  truth  leads  to  truth. 
"  Nor  have  the  demonstrations  of  reason,"  continues  Mr. 
"Watson,  "  done  anything  to  convince  the  other  grand 
division  of  metaphysical  pagans  into  which  modern  hea- 
thenism is  divided,  the  followers  of  Budhu,  who  believe  in 
the  total  annihilation  of  men  and  gods  after  a  series  of 
ages — a  point  of  faith  held  probably  by  a  majority  of  the 
present  race  of  mankind." 

Such  are  a  very  few  of  tlie  multitudinous  and  contra- 
dictory definitions  Avhich  ancient  and  modern  philosophers 
have  given  us  of  these  faculties  of  the  mind.  Let  us  sum 
up  the  definitions  here  given,  that  we  may  see  them  all  at  a 
glance.  The  u>'derstaxdixg  is  the  man  himself ;  the  fac- 
ulty of  applying  2yrinci2)les  ;  the  discursive  f acidly.  It  is 
synonymous  with  reason  /  it  is  of  the  nature  of  the  instinct 
of  a7iimals.  Judgment  :  It  itnplies  comparison ;  our 
judgments  are  intuitive,  analytic,  synthetic,  tautologous. 
Our  judgments  are  drawn  from  opinion,  belief,  or  science. 
2« 


34 


"WATSON  S  THEOLOGICiiX  INSTITUTES 


Reason  :  Jt  is  intuition.  It  is  not  intelligence.  It  is  all 
the  intellectual  powers  collectively.  It  is  a  revelation  from 
God.  It  is  a  mediator.  It  is  a  light.  It  is  the  Logos.  It 
is  the  Word  made  flesh.  It  is  an  interpreter.  It  is  a 
teacher.  It  is  Divine  and  human.  It  is  the  revealed  God 
of  the  human  race.  Its  ideas  belong  to  absolute  intelli-  » 
gence,  not  to  us.    It  is  a  ray  of  the  Divine  reason. 

Here  is  a  specimen  of  man's  knowledge  of  himself 
Here  are  some  of  the  conflicting  opinions  of  some  of  the 
greatest  philosojjhers  with  regard  to  the  nature^  power,  and 
ofjice  of  these  mental  faculties.  The  understanding  is  re- 
duced to  a  level  with  the  instinct  of  brutes.  The  reason  is 
more  fortunate,  for  while  it  has  various  fortunes  and  re- 
verses as  it  passes  through  the  hands  of  different  philoso- 
phers, it  is  finally  elevated  to  proper  divinity  and  godhead ; 
though  at  one  time,  at  least,  it  was  so  low  that  it  M'as  de- 
nied intelligence  !  Any  one  may  now  see  how  little  confi- 
dence is  to  be  placed  in  systems  based  upon  such  unfounded 
and  contradictory  assumptions.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
the  faculty  in  which  Mr.  C.  finds  so  much  power,  from 
which  so  many  good  works  do  pi-oceed,  and  upon  which, 
in  short,  his  whole  system  depends  for  its  very  existence, 
is  that  which  has  had  the  misfortune  of  being  reduced  to  a 
level  with  the  instinct  of  brutes.  Others,  however,  deal 
more  kindly  with  it  and  make  it  "  the  discureive  fiiculty," 
while  others  declare  "  it  is  the  man  himself" 

While  reading  what  philosophers  say  the  reaso?i,  the 
judgment,  and  the  understanding  do,  and  must  do,  we 
were  convinced  that  while  they  thus  talk  they  insensibly 
lose  sight  of  man's  individualitij  and  responsibility.  Strict- 
ly speaking,  it  is  not  proper  to  say  that  the  reason,  the 
judgment,  or  the  understanding  does  anything,  any  more 
than  it  is  proper,  strictly  speaking,  to  say  the  eye  sees,  the 


AJ^D  THE  EIBLE  DEFENDED. 


35 


ear  hears,  the  feet  walk,  and  the  hands  strike.  The  fact  is, 
what  is  thus  attributed  to  the  faculties  in  the  one  case,  and 
to  the  bodily  members  in  the  other,  is  done  by  the  ego, 
and  is  emphatically  and  essentially  the  act  of  the  ego, 
which  is  always  a  unit,  however  much  we  may  talk  about 
faculties.  If  I  M  ould  speak  with  strict  propriety  I  must 
say  I  see,  I  hear,  I  strike,  I  walk,  I  understand,  I  reason, 
I  judge — I,  the  ego,  I,  myself,  do  all  these  things.  ^  This 
thought  is  expressed  by  Sir  John  Davis  in  his  poem  on  the 
immortaUty  of  the  soul,  thus  : 

"  \\Then  she  rates  things,  and  moves  from  ground  to  ground, 
The  name  of  reawn  she  acquires  from  this  : 
But  when  by  reason  she  the  truth  hath  found, 
And  standeth  fixt,  she  understanding  is." 

"While  listening  to  so  many  transcendental  philosophers 
talk  so  confidently  and  so  pompously  of  the  faculties  of 
the  human  mind,  we  were  forcibly  reminded  of  what  Arch- 
bishop Whately  says  of  certain  ecclesiastics  as  to  their 
manner  of  talking,  and  the  effects  protluced.  "  There  is 
something  to  many  minds  awfully  and  mystically  sublime 
in  the  idea  of  the  '  decisions  of  the  Catholic  Church,'  and 
of '  Catholic  Councils,  convened  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and 
whose  decrees  are  authc^-itative,' "  &c.,  &c-,  &c.,  "  espe- 
cially when  these  matters  are  treated  of  in  solemn  and 
imposing  language  of  that  peculiar  kind  of  dazzling  misti- 
ness whose  effect  is  to  convey  at  first  sight  to  ordinary 
readers  a  striking  impression,  with  an  appearance  of  being 
perfectly  intelligible  at  the  first  glance,  but  to  become  more 
obscure  and  doubtful  at  the  second  glance,  and  more  and 
more  so  the  more  attentively  it  is  studied  by  a  reader  of 
clear  understanding,  so  as  to  leave  him  utterly  in  doubt,  at 
the  last,  which  of  several  meanings  it  is  meant  to  convey, 


36  watson's  theological  iststittites 

or  whether  any  at  all.  The  rule  of  '  omne  ignotum  pro 
mirifico  '  applies  most  emphatically  to  such  doctrines  treat- 
ed of  in  such  language."  In  the  foregoing  the  bishop  has 
given  us,  we  think,  an  admirable  picture  of  our  transcend- 
ental philosophers,  of  the  pompous  manner  in  which  they 
speak  of  "  the  human  intelligence  as  configured  and  correlat- 
ed to  eternal  principles  of  order,  and  right,  and  good,  as  they 
exist  in  the  Infinite  Intelligence;"  of  "the  primitive  cogni- 
tions, intuitions,  and  beliefs;"  "the  concepts"  and  the  "ideas 
of  pure  reason,"  which  reason  "  is  the  Logos  of  Pythagoi'as 
and  Plato  ;"  "  the  Word  made  flesh ; "  "  the  manifestation  of 
God  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  "  It  is  not  the  Being  of  beings, 
but  it  is  the  revealed  God  of  the  human  race."  The  confi- 
dence with  which  they  speak  of  their  own  decisions,  and 
the  wonderful  effect  which  this  sort  of  talk  and  its  "dazzling 
mistiness "  produce  upon  certain  minds,  are  equally  well 
described,  we  think,  in  the  above  sketch,  and  the  disap 
pointment  experienced  after  careful  investigation  is  not  less 
accurate  and  truthful.  Oh  how  sad  the  disappointment, 
when  the  reader  turns  away  from  these  transcendental  de- 
scriptions of  fallen  humanity,  and  looks  upon  that  humanity 
as  it  is  !  and  especially  when  he  follows  it  in  its  downward 
course  of  ignorance,  corruption,  and  diabolical  wickedness, 
till  he  can  see  nothing  left  but  tlie  savage,  the  cannibal,  the 
fiend  incarnate  ;  and  then,  perhaps,  alas !  the  course  is  still 
downward  till  it  terminates  in  eternal  ruin!  How  sad,  I 
say,  is  the  disappointment  when,  the  "  dazzling  mistiness  " 
having  past  away,  he  is  left  to  look  upon  the  dreadful  facts 
as  they  are.  We  are  not  now  speaking,  remember,  about 
man  when  raised  by  the  supernatural  remedy  ;  not  speak- 
ing  of  what  man  is  by  that  remedy,  but  of  what  he  is  nat- 
urally and  independent  of  that  remedy :  for,  as  we  said 
before,  what  he  is  or  may  be  through  or  by  that  remedy, 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFEXDED.  37 

has  nothing  to  do  vrith.  the  present  controversy.  Let  it  be 
remembered,  too,  that  whether  Watson  is  right  or  m  rong, 
we  cannot  indorse  the  teaching  here  objected  to ;  the 
charges  brought  against  "Watson  we  will  answer  iu  due 
time  ;  at  present  we  are  attending  to  the  teachings  a7id  as- 
sumptions of  his  opponents  as  set  forth  in  the  quotations 
which  we  have  given  iu  these  pages.  To  us  it  seems 
strange,  passing  strange,  that  men  wUI  build  systems  of 
philosojAy  and  theology  upon  mere  assumptions  concerning 
foculties  which  the  wisest  philosophers,  whether  ancient  or 
modern,  have  never  been  able  to  distinguish  from  each 
other  and  define  with  any  degree  of  hai-mony  and  satisfac- 
tion ;  concerning  which,  in  short,  there  are,  and  ever  have 
been,  so  many  conflicting  and  contradictory  opinions ;  and 
the  wonder  is  that  all  this  is  done  with  as  much  confidence 
as  if  all  were  demonstration  :  while  the  fact  is  indispucable 
that  philosophers  are  and  ever  have  been  entirely  disagreed 
as  to  the  very  foundation  of  the  systems  thus  built.  And 
it  is  still  more  strange,  if  possible,  that  there  has  been,  and 
still  is,  such  a  persistent  disposition  to  be  independent  of 
God's  word,  notwithstanding  we  are  so  much  indebted  to 
that  word  for  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  subject  under  in- 
vestigation. And  if  we  appeal  to  that  word  as  decisive 
and  final  in  its  decisions  on  this  subject,  immediately  it  is 
insinuated,  if  not  broadly  asserted,  that  we  are  not  philoso- 
phei's,  or  that  we  are  opposed  to  jihilosophy,  as  though  the 
Bible  and  philosophy  were  at  variance.  Even  the  author 
of  the  article  under  consideration  has  only  quoted,  if  we 
mistake  not,  Romans  i,  19,  20,  and  Acts  xvii.  26-28,  and 
the  latter,  we  think,  is  irrelevant,  and  as  to  the  former  it 
shall  have  our  attention  in  due  time.  It  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at,  however,  that  philosophers  of  the  transcendental 
school  should  not  seek  help  from  the  Bible  while  they  hold 


'38  Watson's  theological  institutes 

such  high  opinions  of  man's  mental  and  moral  powers.  "We, 
however,  forming  a  much  lower  estimate  of  those  powers, 
and  feeling,  consequently,  our  dependence  upon  God's 
word  for  instruction  on  such  subjects,  purpose  to  make  a 
free  use  of  it,  belteving,  as  we  do,  that  "  all  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness  ; 
that  the  man  of  God  may  be  i:)erfect,  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  all  good  works." 

"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,"  then :  what  does 
God's  word  say  concerning  man's  mental  and  moral  facul- 
ties naturally  ?  And  let  it  be  distinctly  borne  in  mind  that 
we  are  not  now  discussing  the  mere  question  whether  it  is 
possible  for  man  to  derive  the  idea  of  a  God  from  tJie 
facts  of  the  universe ;  for,  though  we  should  admit  that, 
still  Ave  would  object  to  the  teachings  of  transcendentalism 
as  set  forth  in  the  quotations  which  we  have  given  above  ; 
our  work  at  present  is  to  show  that  those  teachings,  as  to 
man's  mental  and  moral  faculties  naturally,  are  at  variance 
with  the  teachings  of  God's  word,  and  with  the  facts  of 
experience  and  history. 

In  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  second  chapter, 
fourteenth  verse,  the  Apostle  Paul  thus  speaks  :  "  But  the 
natural  man  receivcth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  ;  neither  can  he  know 
them,  for  they  are  sjuritually  discerned."  Tho  person  thus 
described  is  denominated  o  ^v)(im%  avOpiom';,  the  natural  man. 
Any  one  M  ho  will  follow  tlie  apostle  from  verse  17  of  the 
preceding  chapter  will  see  that  he  all  along  speaks  of  this 
person  as  the  representative  of  a  certain  class,  or  of  the 
class  of  which  he  is  the  representative.  In  verse  20  he 
speaks  of  6  0-0^05,  and  in  verse  2G  of  ao(j}oi  Kara  arapKo.,  and 
in  verse  22  of  the  Greeks  who  seek  after  ao^tav,  wisdom, 


AND  THE  EI15LE  DEFENDED. 


39 


and  in  verse  20  of  "  the  disputer  of  this  world."  Now,  to 
this  natural  man,  this  wise  man,  this  disputer  of  this 
world,  these  Greeks,  or,  in  other  words,  these  philosophers 
who  rejected  revelation  and  boasted  of  their  philosophy, 
and  the  discoveries  of  natural  reason,  St.  Paul  opposes 
6  TTvevixaTiKo^  avOpw!ro<;,  the  spiritual  man,  in  verse  15  of  the 
second  chapter.  Of  these  same  "  wise  men  after  the  flesh," 
the  same  apostle  thus  speaks  in  Romans  i,  21,  22  :  "They 
became  vain  in  their  imaginations,  and  their  foolish  heart 
was  darkened  ;  professing  themselves  to  be  cro^ot,  they 
became  fools."  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  in  his  comment  ou  this 
place,  says  :  "  This  is  most  strikingly  true  of  all  the  ancient 
philosophers,  whether  Greeks  or  Romans,  as  their  works, 
which  remain,  sufficiently  testify."  Then,  after  some  fur- 
ther remarks,  he  adds:  "  It  was  from  the  Christian  religion, 
alone  that  true  philosojihy  and  genuine  philosophers  sjjrang." 
Jude  gives  us  a  very  dark  picture  of  these  same  iI/v^ikol, 
who,  he  says,  verse  19,  "have  not  the  spirit."  It  is  this 
same  "  natural  man  "  that  is  described  m  the  eighth  chapter 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  His  "  carnal  mind  "  is  de- 
clared to  be  "enmity  against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the 
law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  "  It  is  enmjYy,"  says 
Mr.  Wesley  on  the  place,  "  to  His  existence,  poxcer,  and 
providence:''  Now,  this  man,  though  a  fool,  professes  to 
be  very  wise,  and  boasts  very  much  of  wliat  he  calls  a-offnav 
wisdom,  even  croc^iav  tw  (ro(f>wv,  the  wisdom  of  the  wise. 
But  Paul  calls  it  avOpwinvr]^  o-oc^tas,  man''s  wisdom,  and  the 
wisdom  of  this  world,  and  opposes  to  it  <To<^iav  ©eov,  the 
wisdom  of  God,  which  the  natural  man  hath  not,  because 
he  "  receiveth  not  the  things  "  or  teachings  "  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him ;  neither  can  he 
know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  disoerned."  (1 
Cor.,  chap,  ii,  verses  4,  C,  7,  and  14.)    This  man,  wc  are  told, 


40 


watson's  theological  institutes 


mnnot  know  the  things  of  the  Sj^irit,  not  becavise  this 
knowledge  is  absolutely  out  of  his  reach,  but  because  ho 
will  not  be  instructed  in  God's  way,  because  he  rejects  the 
supe7-)iatural  remedy.  "  That  the  natural  man  here,"  says 
Whitby  on  the  place,  "is  the  man  who  rejects  revelation, 
and  admits  of  no  higher  principle  to  judge  of  things  by 
but  philosophy  and  demonstration  from  the  principles  of 
natural  reason,  is  the  express  assertion  of  Theodoret, 
Chrysostom,  Photius,  CEcumenius,  and  Theophylact,  on  the 
place." 

We  now  see  who  the  natural  man  is,  and  what  that 
wisdom  is  of  which  he  boasted.  It  is  of  this  wisdom  the 
apostle  speaks  when  he  says,  chapter  i,  verse  21,  "  The  world 
by  wisdom  knew  not  God."  And  this  declaration  M'e  claim 
to  be  decisive  of  the  question  ;  it  decides  the  very  question 
at  issue  :  by  this  wisdom  the  world  never  did  know  God  ; 
this  is  the  jiositive  and  unmistakable  declaration  of  the 
apostle,  and  this  declaration  alone  must  forever  set  the 
question  at  rest  in  the  minds  of  all  who  believe  the  apostle 
"  wrote  and  spoke  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Just  opposed  to  this  is  the  equally  positive  declaration  of 
modern  transcendentalists,  with  whom,  consequently,  the 
apostle  joins  issue  as  directly  as  he  did  with  their  brethren, 
the  jihilosophers  of  his  own  day.  It  is  this  philosophy,  so 
called,  that  placed  itself  in  opposition  to  apostolic  teaching 
in  apostolic  times  ;  and  it  does  so  in  our  times.  This  is  the 
teaching  with  which  the  above-named  fothers  joined  issue, 
Avith  which  the  orthodox  in  all  ages  joined  issue,  with 
which  Watson  joined  issue,  and  with  which  we  join  issue. 
And  with  this  teaching  all  must  join  issue  who  would  not 
join  issue  with  apostolic  teaching. 

The  importance  of  this  subject  will  justify  us  in  dwell- 
ing upon  it  yet  longer,  that  we  may,  if  possible,  set  it  in  a 
still  clearer  light. 


A^^)  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


41 


We  take  the  ground  that  when  Adam  fell  there  waa 
nothing  in  him  by  which  he  could  raise  himself  again, 
either  less  or  more  ;  nor  could  any  remedy  be  found  in  that 
order  of  things  which  existed  before  the  fall,  and  which  we 
call  the  natural  order,  in  contradistmction  from  that  order 
of  things  which  was  introduced  after  the  fell,  and  which  we 
call  the  supernatural  order.  Consequently,  so  far  as  Adam 
and  his  posterity  have  been  raised  from  the  fell,  they  have 
been  raised  by  the  supernatural  remedy  thus  introduced, 
and  introduced  for  this  very  purpose.  And  to  this  same 
supernatural  remedy  we  must  be  indebted  for  all  we  shall 
be  raised,  as  well  as  for  all  we  have  been  raised :  in  the 
natural  man,  and  the  natural  order,  as  thus  explained,  there 
was  and  is  no  remedy  for  fallen  humanity.  This  we  con- 
ceive to  be  the  teaching  of  the  apostle  in  the  eighth  chapter 
of  liis  epistle  to  the  Romans,  from  which  we  will  now  give 
a  somewhat  extended  quotation,  it  is  so  much  to  the  j^oint. 
"  For  M'hat  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak 
through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  his  own  Sou  in  the  likeness 
of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin  [or  by  a  sacrifice  for  sin],  con- 
demned sin  in  the  flesh:  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law 
might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but 
after  the  Spirit.  For  they  that  are  after  the  flesh,  do  mmd 
the  things  of  the  flesh  ;  but  they  that  are  after  the  Spirit, 
the  things  of  the  Sjiirit.  For  to  be  carnally  minded  is 
death  ;  but  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace  :  be- 
cause the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is  not 
subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.  So, 
then,  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  But  ye 
are  hot  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  dwell  in  you.  Now,  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his."  Now,  the  apostle  is  speaking 
of  precisely  the  same  persons  here  that  he  speaks  of  in  his 


42  watson's  theological  institutes 

letter  to  the  Corinthians.  The  if/vxiKos  and  wevfiaTiKo^i  or 
natural  and  spiritual  persons  there,  are  the  carnally  and 
spiritually  minded  persons  spoken  of  here,  as  any  one  may 
see  by  carefully  reading  both  places,  especially  if  the  origi- 
nal be  consulted.  See  the  Greek  words  used  by  the  apostle 
in  1  Cor.  ii,  14,  15,  and  Romans  viii,  5-9.  The  amount  is 
this :  so  far  as  the  one  has  received  the  supernatural  rem- 
edy, which  has  been  introduced  and  applied  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  which  dwelleth  in  liim,  so  far  he  is  spiritual^  he  is 
loise.)  he  is  right,  and  no  farther  ;  and  all  comes  through 
the  atonement :  so  "that  the  remedy,  the  medium  of  com- 
munication., and  the  mode  of  applying  the  remedy,  are 
alike  supernatural.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  the 
other  person  has  rejected  this  supernatural  remedy,  so  far 
he  is  carnal,  and  walks  after  the  flesh  and  not  after  the 
Spirit ;  so  far  he  is  ignorant,  foolish,  icrong,  dead.  In  a 
word,  so  far  he  is  natural,  in  the  sense  here  explained  ;  that 
is,  so  far  as  he  has  rejected  the  supernatural  remedy,  and, 
consequently,  is  not  renewed,  is  not  spiritual,  just  so  far  he 
is  "  the  natural  man  who  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
vSpirit  of  God;"  and,  what  is  worse,  "they  are  foolishness 
imto  him  ;  neither  can  l;e  know  them  ;  "  not  as  a  "natural 
man,"  not  by  "the  deductions  of  natural  reason,"  not  by 
"  the  pure  intuitions  of  reason ; "  in  a  word,  not  by  his 
natural  powers,  independent  of  the  supernatural  remedy 
provided  and  offered.  "  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out 
God  ?  "  No,  not  in  this  way,  for  God  and  the  things  of 
God  "  are  spiritually  discerned,"  and  the  natural  man  has 
not  that  qualification,  and  cannot  have  it  while  he  depends 
upon  his  natural  resources  and  rejects  the  supernatural 
remedy  y  "  neither  can  he  know  them  "  while  he  does  so. 
"  This  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the 
world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light."  They 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


43 


will  even  go  back  to  heathenism  rathei-  than  acknowledge 
their  complete  dependence  upon  this  supernatural  remedy 
for  light  and  life,  nor  will  they  acknowledge  their  indebt- 
edness to  it  for  the  light  they  have. 

Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  terms  natural  and  superna- 
tural, as  used  in  this  connection.  Philosophers  may  attach 
other  meanings  to  the  term  natural,  but  theologians  must 
be  scriptural  in  their  teaching,  let  come  what  Avill  of  the 
technicalities  found  in  the  philosopher's  vocabulary.  With 
these  views  we  must  look  upon  the  teachings  of  transcend- 
entahsm  as  tantamount  to  a  rejection  of  the  supernatural 
remedy  altogether  :  for  if  man  is,  or  may  be,  by  the  mere 
exercise  of  his  natural  powers,  all  that  these  teachings  say 
he  is,  or  may  be,  then  there  certainly  is  no  such  necessity 
for  the  atonement  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  as  that  which 
our  Bibles,  our  catechisms,  and  our  fathers  have  taught 
us  to  believe  there  is. 

But,  not  to  insist  upon  the  teachings  of  onr  catechisms 
and  of  our  fathers,  at  present,  we  will  continue  our  quota- 
tions from  the  Bible.  The  case  of  our  first  parent  immedi- 
ately after  the  fall  is  worthy  of  notice.  Genesis  iii.  9,  IQ,  is 
a  record  that  is  very  suggestive :  "  And  the  Lord  God 
called  unto  Adam,  and  said  unto  him.  Where  art  thou  ? 
And  he  said,  I  heard  thy  voice  in  the  garden :  and  I  was 
afraid,  because  I  was  naked ;  and  I  hid  myself"  I  hid 
MYSELF  !  From  whom  ?  From  Jeiiovah  Elohim  !  Alas  ! 
how  is  the  mighty  fallen  !  Poor  Adam  !  And  didst  tliou 
think  thou  couldst  hide  thyself  from  the  Omniscient  God  ? 
I  wonder  if  the  belief  of  Adam,  that  he  could  hide  himself 
from  Jeuovau  Elohim,  was  one  of  tho  "  primitive  beliefs" 
which  our  transcendental  philosophers  speak  of ;  or  was 
this  happy  thought  one  of  those  "  intuitions  of  pure  reason" 
which  they  say  are  found  in  every  man.  If  so,  we  certainly 


4:4  watson's  theological  institutes 

must  object ;  foi*  such  beliefs  and  intuitions  are  not  found 
even  in  our  children :  because  the  good  Book  has  taught 
them  to  say,  "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit  ?  or 
whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  ?  If  I  ascend  up 
into  heaven,  thou  art  there  :  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell, 
behold  thou  art  there  ;  if  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning, 
and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea;  even  there 
shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me. 
If  I  say.  Surely  the  darkness  shall ^  cover  me;  even  the 
night  shall  be  light  about  me.  Yea,  the  darkness  hideth 
not  from  thee ;  but  the  night  shineth  as  the  day :  the 
darkness  and  the  light  are  both  alike  to  thee."  Thus  it  is 
easy  to  see  why  our  children  and  our  philosophers  are 
wiser  than  was  their  first  parent  immediately  after  his  fall ; 
but  it  is  marvellous  that  certain  philosophers  will  persist  in 
ascribing  to  unassisted  reason  what  is  due  to  revelation  \ 

But  this  poor,  fallen,  ignorant  Adam,  we  are  told 
"begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image;"  and 
soon  after  we  are  told  that  "  God  saw  that  the  wickedness 
of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination 
of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually." 
Here  is  another  specimen  of  the  "  primitive  judgments," 
and  of  the  "  intuitions  of  -p-are  reason  !  "  "  The  earth  also 
was  corrupt  before  God  ;  and  the  earth  was  filled  with 
violence.  An(?  God  looked  upon  the  earth,  and  behold,  it 
was  corrupt ;  for  all  flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  ihe 
earth."  Another  striking  evidence  that  "  the  human  intel- 
ligence is  configured  and  correlated  to  eternal  principles 
of  order,  and  right,  and  good  as  they  exist  in  the  Infinite 
Intelligence."  The  above  quotations  are  from  Gen.  vi,  5, 
11,  12;  the  following  is  from  chap,  viii,  21,  and  it  shows 
that  the  antediluvians,  and  the  postdiluvians,  naturally, 
are  the  same  :  "  for  the  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil 
from  his  youth." 


A.XD  THE  BEBLE  DEFENDED. 


45 


Passing  over  the  abominations  of  Sodom  and  Gomori-ah, 
and  all  other  developments  of  the  corrui^tions  and  igno- 
rance of  "  the  natural  man^''  by  which  the  pages  of  history 
are  stained  and  blackened  all  over,  we  come  to  the  days  of 
Job,  and  find  the  natural  man  thus  described  by  the  wisest 
and  most  observant  in  the  land  of  Uz  :  "  Vain  man  would 
be  wise,  though  man  be  born  like  a  wild  ass's  colt,"  JoJb 
xi,  12.  And  again,  chap,  xv,  16,  we  are  assured  that  he  is 
"  abominable  and  filthy,"  and  that  he  "  drinketh  iniquity 
like  water."  It  is  remarkable  that  then,  as  now,  there 
were  two  parties  :  one  claiming  to  be  wise^  though  vain  ; 
while  the  other  degraded  the  natural  reason  quite  as  much 
as  Watson  is  said  to  have  done,  as  is  seen  in  the  above 
declarations  of  the  most  thinking  men  of  Uz,  who,  no 
doubt,  were  sensationalists,  while  the  other  party  were  as 
evidently  transcendentalists,  though  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  professed  quite  as  much  as  do  their  brethren  of  the 
present  day.  In  the  days  of  the  psalmist  we  do  not  find 
that  "  the  natural  man  "  is  any  better  ;  for  the  Almighty 
Himself,  after  careful  investigation,  "  to  see  if  there  were 
any  that  did  understand  and  seek  God,"  declares,  "  They 
are  all  gone  aside,  they  are  all  together  become  filthy  : 
there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one."  In  the  days 
of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  too,  we  find  "  the  natural  man  " 
just  the  same  ;  as  is  evident  from  the  declarations  of  those 
pi-ophets,  which  run  thus  :  "  The  ox  knoweth  his  owner, 
and  the  ass  his  master's  crib :  but  Israel  doth  not  know, 
my  people  do  not  consider."  So  it  ajjpears  that  those 
stupid  creatures  knew  their  master  and  their  owner  better 
than  "  the  natural  man  "  knew  his  God,  though  in  the  land 
of  Israel.  While  Isaiah  gives  us  a  mournful  picture  of  the 
stupidity  and  i_gnorance  of  the  natural  man,  Jeremiah  gives 
us  a  still  more  mournful  picture  of  his  moral  badness,  in 


46 


Watson's  theological  jnstitutks 


these  few  but  aAvfiilly  expressive  and  comprehensive  worcls : 
"The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately 
wicked :  "who  can  know  it  ? "  Still  worse,  if  possible,  is 
the  dark  picture  which  our  blessed  Lord  gives  us  of  the 
same  heart,  Matt,  xv,  19,  and  Mark  vii,  21,22.  In  this 
picture  are  fourteen  specifications,  one  of  which  is  blas- 
phemy. Thus  Avhile  some  are  "  contradicting  and  blas- 
pheming "  the  name  of  God,  others  are  denying  his  very 
being,  as  the  psalmist  tells  us  in  the  14th  psalm,  in  these 
words :  "  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God  ; " 
and  a  little  after  he  says,  "  They  are  corrupt,  they  have 
done  abominable  works,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good." 
In  the  third  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  the  Apostle 
Paul  quotes  these  words  of  the  psalmist,  and,  in  short,  sums 
up  and  indorses  all  that  previous  inspired  writers  had  said 
on  this  subject.  And  dark  as  is  the  dreadful  painting,  he 
declares  it  is  a  true  picture  of  the  natural  man,  whether  a 
Jew  or  a  Gentile,  "  What  then,"  says  he,  "  are  we,"  Jews, 
"  better  than  they,"  Gentiles  ?  "  No,  in  no  wise ;  for  we 
have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that  they  are 
all  under  sin."  And  to  know  what  he  means  by  being 
"  under  sin,"  the  specifications  which  follow  must  be  care- 
fully read. 

Now,  what  does  our  blessed  Lord,  and  all  the  inspired 
writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  mean  in  those 
declarations  which  we  have  quoted,  and  others  which 
might  be  quoted  ?  What  is  the  specific  meaning  of  these 
their  statements  ?  Do  they  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that 
every  human  being  upon  the  earth  at  every  period  of  its 
history,  was,  is,  and  shall  be  all  that  is  specified  m  the 
above  and  similar  declarations  ?  Do  they  by  such  utter- 
ances mean  to  teach  us  that  every  child  of  man  was,  is,  and 
shall  be  as  ignorant  of  God  and  as  corrupt  as  is  asserted  in 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


47 


the  words  here  quoted  ?  To  this  question  there  is  but  one 
answer  :  they  did  not,  and  could  not,  mean  this  ;  for  there 
have  been  wise  and  good  people  on  the  earth  at  every 
period  of  its  history.  What,  then,  did  they  mean  ?  I 
answer:  they  meant  just  what  they  said,  viz.,  that  this  is 
the  character  of  the  i^v^ikos  av^pw-rros,  the  natural  man, 
whenever  and  whercA-er  found ;  and  the  natural  man  is 
the  man  that  is  not  renewed  by  the  supernatural  remedy ; 
and  the  Tn/cv/xartKos  is  the  man  that  is  thus  renewed :  hence, 
while  the  former  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  regards  them  as  the  veriest  foolishness,  because, 
as  a  natural  man,  he  cannot  know  them  ;  the  latter  dis- 
cerneth  all  things,  all  those  things  which  the  other  can- 
not  know,  "  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned,''''  which 
spiritual  discernment  he  has  not,  and,  as  a  natural  man, 
cannot  have. 

We  now  see  icho  the  natural  man  is,  and  what  he  is. 
And  we  sec,  too,  that  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  and  those 
of  transcendentalism,  .with  regard  to  the  mental  and  moral 
character  of  the  natural  man,  are  completely  at  variance; 
it  is  not  possible  to  reconcile  them  ;  so  completely  are  they 
at  variance  that  it  is  not  possible  to  hold  the  one,  intelli- 
gently, and  not  reject  the  other.  And  that  this  same 
teaching  is  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  experience  also, 
will  be  shown  in  due  time. 

Our  reviewer  professes  to  have  shown  "that  human 
reason  can  demonstrate  from  the  facts  of  the  universe  and 
the  intuitions  of  the  mind  that  God  exists,  and  consequently 
that  '  our  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God  is  not  derived 
from  revelation  alone.'  "  Then  follows  what  he  calls  "  an 
analysis  of  the  belief  hi  God  as  developed  in  the  human  in- 
telligence." 

This  analysis  we  have  already  examined,  and  have  shown 


4S  watson's  theological  institutes 

that  what  he  claims  cannot  be  granted,  that  his  whole  sys- 
tem rests  upon  mere  assumptions  as  to  the  office  and  work 
of  certain  mental  faculties  concerning  which  philosophers 
are  not  and  never  have  been  agreed.  We  have  shown, 
too,  that  what  he  asserts  concerning  these  faculties  in  the 
natural  man,  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  teachings  of  God's 
word  ;  and  will  show  that  it  is  equally  opposed  to  the  facts 
of  experience.  And  as  to  the  ■n-vev/j.aTiKos,  the  spiritual  man, 
the  man  that  is  already  in  possession  of  the  idea  of  a  God, 
and  is  enlightened  and  renewed  by  the  super7iatural  reme- 
dy, his  ability  to  prove  the  being  of  a  God  is  not  questioned. 
So  far  as  we  know,  certainly  Watson  does  not  question  it ; 
on  the  contrary,  he  asserts  it.  Therefore,  to  prove  that 
this  man  can  do  this  thing  is  to  jorove  what  is  not  denied, 
and  to  prove  that  the  i/^xtKos  dv^pcoTros,  the  natural  man,  ca^i 
do  this,  is  to  prove  what  the  word  of  God  declares  to  be 
impossible.  Neither  does  it  follow  that,  because  the  spir- 
itual man  can  demonstrate  the  being  of  a  God  from  the 
facts  of  the  universe,  therefore  he.  is  not  indebted,  to 
revelation  for  this  "  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God," 
seeing  his  ability  thus  to  demonstrate  this  great  truth  in 
this  way,  may  result  entirely  from  his  knowledge  of  God 
thus  received  ;  therefore,  till  this  is  disproved,  we  must  re- 
ject the  inference  as  altogether  illegitimate.  We  must  say, 
then,  and  we  do  it  M'ith  all  deference,  that  the  reviewer  has 
been  entirely  unsuccessful  in  his  undertaking ;  he  has  ut- 
terly failed  to  prove  what  he  undertook  to  prove,  imless  he 
undertook  to  prove  what  is  not  denied,  viz.,  that  the  spir- 
itual man  can  do  this,  and  even  then  his  inference  is  ille- 
gitimate. 

We  confess  that  we  question  the  jiossibility  of  man's 
oriffhiating  the  idea  of  a  God,  even  in  his  primeval  state, 
supposing  that  his  Creator  had  left  him  without  that  idea 


AST)  THE  BIBLE  DEFE:S'DED. 


49 


for  a  given  time,  which  v,-e  do  not  believe.  "When  we 
speak  of  the  idea  of  a  God,  we  mean,  of  course,  the  God  of 
the  Bible,  for  there  is  no  other.  That  man,  even  in  his 
fallen  state,  has  the  idea  of  a  superior  being  whom  he  wor- 
ships as  God,  is  not  questioned ;  nor  will  he  be  satisfied 
with  one,  for  he  will  have  gods  many  and  lords  many. 
But  the  question  is :  could  man,  even  in  his  primeval  state, 
originate  the  idea  of  the  true  God,  the  God  of  the  Bible  ? 

In  reply  to  this  question  perhaj^s  we  cannot  do  better 
than  give  a  quotation  from  our  published  review  of  a  ser- 
mon by  Rev.  Henry  "Ward  Beecher.  In  reply  to  his  asser- 
tion that  "  the  natural  world  and  the  human  soul  are  the 
only  two  sources  from  which  men  derived  their  ideas  con- 
cei-ning  the  Divine  nature,"  we  said  then,  and  now  say 
again,  "Is  it  possible  for  our  weakness  to  suggest  the  idea 
of  omnipotence  ?  Our  utter  ignorance  of  the  future  to 
suggest  the  idea  of  absolute  prescience  ?  Our  very  limited 
knowledge,  our  ignorance  and  blindness,  I  had  almost  said, 
to  suggest  the  idea  of  omniscience  ?  Is  it  possible  for  a 
being  who,  by  his  very  nature,  is  necessarily  confined  to  a 
given  point  of  space  at  every  given  moment  of  time,  to 
derive  from  this  same  nature  the  idea  of  omnipresence  ? 
"Will  lie  not  rather  argue,  '  If  I,  who  am  a  spirit,  am,  by 
my  very  nature,  necessarily  confined  to  a  given  point  of 
space,  at  every  given  point  of  time,  every  spirit  is  subject 
to  the  same  limitation  ;  but  God  is  a  spirit,  ergo,  God  is 
confined  to  a  given  point  of  space  at  every  given  jioint  of 
time.'  Thus  arguing  from  his  own  nature,  and  from  that 
of  all  other  creatures,  however  exalted,  he  legitimately 
reaches  the  conclusion  that  God  is  not  omnipresent,  is  not 
omniscient,  is  not  omnipotent ;  in  a  word,  is  a  located  and 
limited  being.  Nor  is  it  possible  for  any  creature,  how- 
ever exalted,  to  derive  from  itself,  or  from  any  other  crea- 
3 


60  WATSOn's  TnEOLOGICAL  INSTirnXES 

ture,  or  from  any  number  of  creatures,  the  idea  of  the  God 
of  the  Bible  :  for  it  is  not  possible  to  derive  from  anything 
what  it  does  not  possess.  Creation,  however  extensive,  is 
limited,  and  would  be,  if  it  were  ten  thousand  times  more 
extensive  than  it  is.  And  being  limited,  it  cannot  give  the 
idea  of  the  unlimited  ;  being  finite,  it  cannot  impart  the 
idea  of  the  Infinite  :  because,  we  repeat,  it  cannot  possibly 
impart  what  it  does  not  possess.  It  follows,  then,  that  so 
sure  as  we  have  the  true  idea  of  the  true  God,  so  sure  we 
have  it  from  himself  originally,  and  directly.  We  say  di- 
rectly ;  by  which  we  mean,  it  was  not  inferred  by  any  in- 
telligent creature  from  its  own  nature,  nor  yet  from  the 
nature  and  extent  of  creation  at  large ;  for  there  was  net, 
and  could  not  be,  anything  in  either,  or  in  both,  that  could 
suggest  the  idea  of  omnipresence,  omniscience,  or  omni- 
potence. In  a  word,  nothing  that  could  suggest  the  idea 
of  the  unlimited,  the  Infinite  ;  for  whatever  be  the  nature 
and  extent  of  creation,  still  it  must  be  limited,  still  it  must 
he  fin  ite  ;  and  consequently,  we  repeat  it  yet  again,  could 
not  possibly  suggest  the  idea  of  the  unlimited,  of  the  In- 
finite ;  and  what  cannot  suggest  the  idea  of  the  unlimited, 
the  Ineinttb,  cannot  suggest  the  idea  of  the  God  of  the 
Bible ;  for  the  suggestion,  the  idea,  that  stops  short  of 
this,  stops  infinitely  short  of  the  true  God ! 

If  Mr.  C.  had  confiiied  himself  to  what  he  considered 
objectionable  in  Watson's  Metaphysics,  or  Institutes,  our 
course,  like  his  in  that  case,  would  have  been  straight- 
forward. But  this  he  has  not  done.  The  fact  is,  his  article 
contains  a  mere  exhibit,  and  an  attempted  defence  of  the 
teachings,  the  most  extravagant  teachings,  of  transcend- 
ental philosophy,  accompanied  by  a  marvellous  represent- 
ation, or  rather,  misrepresentation,  of  the  j^hilosophical  and 
theological  teachings  of  Richard  Watson.    Hitherto  we 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


51 


Lave  confined  our  attention-  principally  to  the  former,  now 
■we  will  give  our  attention  princijially  to  the  latter. 

In  listening  to  the  charges  brought  against  the  author 
of  the  Institutes,  we  purpose  to  place  him  upon  his  trial 
alone,  and  of  the  people  there  shall  be  none  with  him;  not 
even  the  empirical  or  sensational  philosophers,  amongst 
whom  Mr.  C.  has  forced  him  to  dwell  like  the  psalmist 
"  in  the  tents  of  Kedar." 

Instead  of  listening  to  general  and  sweeping  charges 
brought  against  Watson  on  the  assumption  that  he  be- 
longed to  a  certain  school  of  philosophers,  we  will  now 
hear  such  specific  charges  as  may  be  brought  against  Wat- 
son himself. 

On  p.  185,  Mr.  C.  continues  to  bring  his  sweeping 
charges  against  Watson  thus  :  "  That  Watson  was,  in  phi- 
losophy, a  sensationalist,  must,  we  think,  be  evident  to 
every  discrimmating  mind  furnished  with  even  a  very 
slender  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  modern  philoso- 
phy. A  careful  perusal  of  the  chapters  '  On  the  Presump- 
tive Evidences,'  in  Part  I,  the  chapter  '  On  the  Existence 
of  God,'  in  Part  11,  and  the  first  chapter  of  Part  III,  '  On 
the  Moral  Law,'  will  be  decisive  of  this  question  in  every 
intelligent  mind.  He  affirms,  with  earnestness  and  em- 
phasis, that  we  have  no  idea  of  God,  of  right  and  wrong, 
and  of  immortality,  except  as  deri\^d  from  toithoKt  by  in- 
~struction  and  verbal  revelation  ;  that,  indeed,  we  have  no 
faculty  of  Jcnoichig  on  any  of  these  subjects  except  faith." 
In  proof  of  the  truthfulness  of  these  charges,  general 
charges  as  usual,  he  refers  us  to  the  Institutes,  vol.  i,  pages 
10,  11,  272,  and  274,  and  gives  us  the  following  as  specifi- 
cations :  "  We  are  aU  conscious  that  we  gain  our  knowledge 
of  God  by  instruction.  .  .  .  We  owe  our  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  God  and  of  his  attributes  to  revelation  aloxe." 


52  Watson's  theological  institotes 

He  also  gives  us  the  following  as  the  words  of  Ellis,  and  as 
being  apjwoved  by  Watson :  "  God  is  the  only  way  to 
himself;  he  cannot  be  hi  the  least  come  at,  defined,  or 
demonstrated  by  human  reason."  He  then  charges  Wat- 
son with  asserting,  at  page  10,  vol.  i,  "  that  wo</«'ny  aj^pears 
in  the  constitution  of  nature,  or  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Divine  administration,  to  indicate  it  to  be  the  will  of  God 
that  the  ai)petites  should  be  restrained  within  the  rules 
of  sobriety,  except  that,  by  a  connection  which  has  been 
established  by  him,  the  excessive  indulgence  of  those  ap- 
petites usually  impairs  health."  .  .  .  The  design  of  the 
whole  of  this  chapter  ii,"  continues  the  reviewer,  "is  to 
prove  '  that  the  rule  which  determines  the  quality  of  moral 
action  must  be  presumed  to  be  matter  of  [oral]  revelation 
from  God.'  "  Finally,  as  a  quotation  from  jiage  11,  vol.  i, 
we  have  the  following :  "  All  observation  lies  directly 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  immortcdity  of  man.  He  dies  ! 
and  the  probabilities  of  a  future  life,  which  have  been 
established  upon  the  unequal  distribution  of  rewards  and 
punishments  in  this  life,  and  the  capacities  of  the  human 
soul,  are  a  i^resuraptive  evidence  which  has  been  adduced 
only  by  those  to  whom  the  doctrine  had  been  transmitted 
by  tradition,  and  were,  therefore,  in  possession  of  the 
idea."  Our  reviewer  now  reaches  this  sweeping  and  mar- 
vellous conclusion :  "  It  is,  therefore,  but  natural  that  he 
should  enter  his  solemn  protest  against  the  attempt  to  con- 
struct a  science  of  jjatueal  theology,  or  of  mokal 
puiLosopiiY,  as  a  design  which  is  not  only  '  visionary  and 
impossible,  but  of  mischievous  tendency,'  and  they  who  are 
engaged  in  it  arc  accessary  to  tlie  mfidel  crusade  against 
the  word  of  God." 

Now  although  we  profess  to  have  a  "  slender  acquaint- 
ance with  the  history  of  modern  philosophy,"  and  with  that 


ASD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


53 


of  ancient  pliilosophy  too  ;  and  though /\ve  profess  to  have 
a  little  intelligence  and  discrimination,  yet,  after  "  a  care- 
ful perusal  of  the  chapters  "  referred  to  by  the  reviewer, 
and  of  all  other  parts  of  the  Institutes,  we  confess  we 
have  utterly  failed  to  find  the  errors  which  the  reviewer 
l)rolcsses  to  have  found  there.  On  the  contrary,  we  are 
more  and  uiore  convinced  of  the  soundness  and  of  the  im- 
}iortance  of  both  the  theological  and  philosophical  teach- 
ings of  the  Institutes.  Xor  do  we  hesitate  to  express 
our  deep  conviction  that  the  chapters  referred  to  are  s^^e- 
cially  important  ;  because  truth  specially  important,  and 
error  specially  dangerous,  are  there  set  forth — the  former 
defended,  and  the  latter  exposed — by  a  pen  evidently  ^deld- 
ed  by  a  master's  hand ;  not  by  the  hand  of  an  empiric ! 
"We  have  also  to  object  to  what  are  given  above  as  quota- 
tions from  the  chapters  referred  to,  because,  though  they 
profess  to  be  accurate  quotations,  they  are  not ;  but  are 
very  inaccurate,  so  much  so,  that  Ave  are  convinced  no  one 
by  reading  them  would  obtain,  to  say  the  very  least,  a  cor- 
rect knowledge  of  the  teachings  of  Richard  "Watson. 

The  design  of  chap,  ii,  vol.  i,  of  the  Institutes  is  thus 
given  by  Mr.  C.  in  the  quotation  given  above  :  "  The  de- 
sign of  the  whole  of  this  chajiter  ii  is  to  prove  '  that  the 
rule  which  determines  the  quaUty  of  moral  action  must  be 
presumed  to  be  matter  of  [oral]  revelation  from  God.' " 
The  design  of  the  same  chapter  is  thus  given  by  its  author 
in  the  closing  paragraph  : 

"  The  whole  of  this  argument  is  designed  to  prove  that, 
had  we  been  left,  for  the  regulation  of  our  conduct,  to  infer 
the  will  and  purjioses  of  the  Supreme  Being  from  his  natu- 
ral works  and  his  administration  of  the  affiurs  of  the  world, 
our  knowledge  of  both  would  have  been  essentially  defi- 
cient ;  and  it  establishes  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of 


54 


WATSOn's  TnEOLOGICAIi  INSTITUTES 


a  direct  revelation  from  God  to  liis  creatures,  that  neitlicr 
bis  will  concerning  us,  nor  tlie  hope  of  forgiveness,  might 
be  loft  to  dark  and  uncertain  inference,  but  be  the  subjects 
of  an  express  de-claration." 

Now  Ave  think  that  Mr.  "Watson  knew  the  design  of  his 
own  argument  quite  as  well  as  Mr,  Coeker,  and  if  the  latter 
considered  that  design  pernicious,  he  should  have  given  it 
to  his  readers  in  the  author's  own  words,  and  then  point  out 
its  pernicious  character,  and  not  set  up  a  man  of  straw  of 
his  own  making  and  fight  that  as  though  he  were  fighting 
Mr.  Watson.  "Why  Mr.  C.  has  done  the  latter  and  not  the 
former  we  will  not  take  upon  us  to  say,  but  we  must  say 
that  by  doing  so  he  has  misrepresented  Mr.  Watson  and 
led  his  readers,  who  were  not  acquamted  with  Mr.  Wat- 
son's writings,  astray.  And  we  say,  too,  that  to  object  to 
the  teaching  of  Mr.  Watson,  in  this  chapter,  as  set  forth  in 
his  own  words,  is  virtually  to  take  the  position  of  infidels 
and  deists,  who  hold  that  the  book  of  nature  is  sufficient, 
and  that  the  book  of  revelation  consequently  is,  to  say  the 
least,  superfluous  and  uncalled  for.  We  have  this  moment 
looked  over  the  chapter  again,  and  find  that  the  argument 
is  directed  to  these  very  characters.  Hence,  the  following 
quotation  from  Bohugbroke,  in  a  note  at  the  foot  of  page 
9:  "By  employing  our  reason  to  collect  the  Avill  of  God 
from  the  fund  of  our  nature,  j^hysical  and  moral,  we  may 
acquire  not  only  a  particular  knowledge  of  those  laws  which 
are  deducible  from  them,  but  a  general  knowledge  of 
the  manner  in  which  God  is  jjleased  to  exercise  his  su- 
preme powers  in  this  system."  Thus,  in  opposition  to  Bol- 
ingbroke  and  all  others  who  assert  that  "  our  reason  can 
collect  the  will  of  God  from  the  fund  of  our  nature,"  and, 
consequently,  that  a  written  revelation  is  not  necessary, 
Mr.  Watson  asserts  the  necessity  of  a  du'cct  revelation, 


AND  TUE  Eir.LE  DEFENDED. 


55 


and  by  a  masterly  and  most  conclusive  argument  he  estab- 
lishes his  position,  as  we  will  now  show. 

The  question  to  be  discussed  is  thus  stated  by  Mr. 
Watson  on  page  10,  vol.  i :  "  Arc  there,  in  the  natural 
works  of  God,  or  in  his  manner  of  governing  the  world, 
sucli  indications  of  the  will  of  God  concerniug  us,  as  can 
aflbrd  sufficient  direction  in  forming  a  perfectly  virtuous 
character,  and  sufficient  information  as  to  the  means  by 
which  it  is  to  be  affected  ?  "  Now  the  reviewer  of  Watson 
takes  the  negative  or  the  positive  of  this  question ;  if  the 
.negative.,  he  is  one  with  Watson,  and  there  is  no  dispute: 
if  the  x)Ositive,  then  he  occupies  the  position  of  Boling- 
broke  and  all  others  who  reject  a  direct  revelation,  as  be- 
ing unnecessary,  to  say  the  least,  and  hold  natural  reason 
and  the  book  of  nature  to  be  sufficient  for  these  purposes  ; 
the  latter,  of  course,  is  the  reviewer's  position*  Tlie  reader 
now  sees,  beyond  the  possibility  of  mistake,  the  true  posi- 
tion of  Watson,  and  that  of  his  reviewer,  and  can  take 
which  side  he  pleases.  To  assist  him,  however,  in  his 
choice,  we  will  give  an  outline  of  the  argumefit.  We  do 
this  the  more  readily,  because  the  reviewer  professes  to 
find  so  much  deadly  error  in  this  chapter,  as  is  seen  in  the 
quotations  which  we  have  given  above. 

"  The  Theist  will  himself  acknowledge  that  temperance., 
justice,  and  benevolence  are  essential  to  moral  virtue." 

Mr.  Watson  now  proceeds  to  show  that  the  indications 
of  the  constitution- of  nature,  and  of  God's  natural  govern- 
ment, in  favor  of  temperance,  are  not  sufficient  for  the  pur- 
pose, and  concludes  by  saying :  "  The  rule  is  therefore  im- 
perfect." The  capitals  are  mine  :  my  object  is  to  fix  the 
attention  of  the  reader  upon  the  point  that  Watson  clahns 
to  have  established.  The  rule  is  imperfect  :  that  is  all ;  it 
requires  a  direct  revelation  from  God  to  aftbrd  fallen  man 


56  Watson's  theological  institutes 

a  perfect  rule  of  temperance.  Tlie  next  element  in  "  a  per- 
fectly virtuous  character  "  is  just  ice.  Mr,  W.  goes  on  to 
say  that  neither  "are  the  obligations  of  justice  in  this  way 
indicated  with  adequate  clearness  ; "  and  closes  his  argu- 
ment on  this  point  thus  :  "  Rules  of  justice,  therefore,  thus 
indicated  would,  like  those  of  temperance,  be  very  imper- 
eect."  He  now  takes  up  the  third  element,  and  with  his 
characteristic  cleai-ness  conducts  his  argument  to  this  con- 
clusion :  "The  rule  would  therefore  be  uncertain  and 
DARK,  and  ENTIRELY  SILENT  as  to  the  extent  to  which  benefi- 
cence is  to  be  carried,  and  whether  there  may  not  be  ex- 
ceptions to  its  exercise  as  to  individuals,  such  as  enemies, 
vicious  2)ersons,  and  strangersy  Concerning  all  the  indica- 
tions of  God's  will,  in  the  ways  above  specified,  he  con- 
cludes thus :  "  It  follows  then  that  they  form  a  rule  too 
vague  in  itself,  and  too  liable  to  difierent  interpretations  to 
place  the  conduct  of  men  under  adequate  regulation,  even 
in  respect  of  temperance,  justice,  and  henevolence^  Mr. 
Watson  now  goes  on  to  show  that  the  information  derived 
from  the  aforementioned  sources  is  still  more  defective  as 
to  other  and  still  more  vital  points. 

"  For  instance,"  he  says,  "  there  is  no  indication  in  either 
nature  or  providence  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  his 

creatures  should  worship  him  There  is  no  indication 

that  God  will  be  approached  in  prayer  !N"or  is  there  a 

sufficient  indication  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ment, because  there  is  no  indubitable  declaration  of  man's 
immortality,  nor  any  facts  and  principles  so  obvious  as  to 
enable  us  confidently  to  infer  it.  Hence  some  of  the  wisest 
heathens,  who  were  not  wholly  unaided  in  their  specula- 
tions on  these  subjects  by  the  reflected  light  of  revelation, 
confessed  themselves  unable  to  come  to  any  satisfactory 
conclusion.    The  doubts  of  Socrates,  who  expressed  hira- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


57 


self  the  most  hopeful  of  any  on  the  subject  of  a  future  life, 
are  well  known ;  and  Cicero,  who  occasionally  expatiates 
with  so  much  eloquence  on  this  topic,  shows  by  the  skep- 
tical expressions  which  he  throws  iu  that  his  belief  was  by 
no  means  confirmed."  Here  follow  some  of  Cicero's  own 
words  with  regard  to  the  human  soul  after  the  present  life: 
"  Show  me  first,  if  you  can,  and  if  it  be  not  too  trouble- 
some, that  souls  remain  after  death  ;  or,  if  you  cannot 
prove  that  (for  it  is  difficult),  declare  how  there  is  no  evil 
in  death." 

"  If,  therefore,"  continues  Mr.  "Watson,  "  without  any 
help  from  direct  or  traditional  instruction,  we  could  go  as 
for  as  they,*  it  is  plain  that  our  religious  system  would  be 
deficient  in  all  those  motives  to  virtue  which  arise  from  the 
doctrine  of  man's  accountability  and  a  future  life,  and  in 
that  moral  control  which  such  doctrines  exert,  the  neces- 
sity of  which  for  the  moral  government  of  the  world  is 
sufficiently  proved  by  the  wickedness  which  prevails  even 
where  these  doctrines  are  fully  taught." 

"Still  further,"  continues  our  author,  "there  is  nothing 
iu  those  manifestations  of  God  and  of  his  will  which  the 
most  attentive  contemplatist  can  be  supposed  to  collect 
from  his  natural  works  and  from  his  sovereign  rule,  to  afford 
thohope  of  pardon  to  any  one  who  is  conscious  of  having 
offended  him,  or  any  assurance  of  felicity  in  a  future  state, 
should  one  exist." 

Our  author  now  goes  on  to  show,  in  a  very  forcible  and 
pathetic  manner,  how  impossible  it  is  for  the  sinner  to 
obtain  from  such  sources  even  a  hope  that  his  offences  will 
be  forgiven.  "  All  observation  and  experience,"  he  says, 
"  lie  against  this  ;  and  the  case  is  the  more  alarming  to  a 
considerate  mind,  that  so  little  of  the  sad  inference  that  the 
human  race  is  under  a  rigorous  administration,  depends 
3* 


58 


watson's  theological  rN-sTrruTEs 


upon  reasoning  and  opinion :  it  is  a  fact  of  common  and 
daily  observation.  Tlie  minds  of  men  in  general  are  a  prey 
to  discontent  and  care,  and  are  agitated  by  various  evil 
passions.  The  race  itself  is  doomed  to  wasting  labors  of 
the  body  or  the  mind,  in  order  to  obtain  subsistence. 
Their  employments  are  for  the  most  part  low  and  grovel- 
ling, in  comparison  of  the  capacity  of  the  soul  for  intellec- 
tual pleasures  and  attainments.  The  mental  powers,  though 
distributed  with  great  equality  among  the  various  classes 
of  men,  are  only  in  the  case  of  a  few  individuals  ever 
awakened.  The  pleasures  most  strenuously  sought  are, 
therefore,  sensual,  degrading,  and  transient.  Life  itself, 
too,  is  precarious  ;  infants  suffer  and  die,  youth*is  blighted, 
and  thus  by  far  the  greater  part  of  mankind  is  swept  away 
before  tlie  prime  of  life  is  attained.  Casualties,  plagues, 
famines,  floods,  and  war  carry  on  the  work  of  destruction." 
Our  author  goes  on  thus  to  eumerate  painful  facts  similar 
to  the  above,  and  adds,  "  The  very  rehgions  of  the  world 
have  completed  human  wretchedness  by  obdurating  the 
heart,  by  giving  birth  to  sanguinary  sujDcrstitions,  and  by 
introducing  a  corruption  of  morals  destrjiptive  of  the  very 
elements  of  well  ordered  society.  Part  of  these  evils  are 
permitted  by  the  Supreme  Governor,  and  part  inflicted.  .  .  . 
But  whether  permitted  or  mflicted,  they  are  punitive  acts 
of  his  administration,  ai/d  present  him  before  us,  notwith- 
standing innumerable  instances  "of  his  benevolence,  as  a 
Being  of  terrible  majesty." 

So  close  is  the  argument  in  this  chapter,  and  so  much 
to  the  point  is  all  that  is  said,  and  so  important  withal,  that 
we  would  like  to  give  the  whole  of  it ;  but  as  that  cannot 
be,  we  find  it  difficult  to  decide  what  should  bo  left  out. 

Our  author  goes  on  to  show  how  imsuccessful  have  been 
the  efforts  of  great  men  "to  remove  in  part  the  awful 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


59 


mystery  M'hicli  overhangs  such  an  aclministration,"  without 
the  light  of  a  direct  revelation  from  God  ;  and,  admitting 
that  we  were  even  certain  of  existing  in  a  future  state,  he 
closes  this  part  of  the  argument  by  saying,  "  The  idea  of 
a  future  life  does  not,  therefore,  relieve  the  case.  If  it  be 
just  that  man  should  be  punished  here,  it  may  be  required 
by  the  same  just  regard  to  the  principles  of  a  strictly  moral 
government  that  he  should  be  jjunished  hereafter."  Thus 
darkness  still  rests  upon  the  future,  and,  at  best,  fallen  man 
lias  too  much  reason  to  fear  the  worst.  Hence  "  The  The- 
ist,"  continues  our  author,  "  in  order  to  support  this  hope 
[of  a  future  life],  dwells  upon  the  proofs  of  the  goodness  of 
God  with  which  this  Avorld  abounds,  but  shuts  his  eyes 
upon  the  demonstrations  of  his  severity ;  yet  these  sur- 
round him  as  well  as  the  other,  and  the  argument  from  the 
severity  of  God  is  as  forcible  agamst  pardon  as  the  argu- 
ment from  his  goodness  is  in  its  favor.  At  the  best  it  is 
left  entirely  uncertain  ;  a  ground  is  laid  for  heart-rending 
doubts  and  fearful  anticipations ;  and,  for  anything  he  can 
show  to  the  contrary,  the  goodness  which  God  has  display- 
ed in  nature  and  providence  may  only  render  the  offence 
of  man  more  aggravated,  and  serve  to  strengthen  the  pre- 
sumption against  the  forgiveness  of  a  wilful  offender, 
rather  than  afford  him  any  reason  for  hope."  Here  follows 
the  concluding  paragraph,  in  which  the  author  sijecifies  the 
design  of  the  whole  argument.  This  paragraph  we  have 
given  above. 

Such  is  the  chapter  in  which  the  reviewer  professes  to 
have  fwund  so  much  error.  Such  is  the  design  of  the  chap- 
ter, and  such  is  the  argument  which  our  author  employs  to 
support  his  position,  all  of  which  we  pi-onounce  worthy  of 
tlie  author  of  the  Tueological  Ixsth-utes,  and  supported 
by  Scripture  and  experience. 


60  watson's  theological  instittttes 


CHAPTEE  II. 

In  proof  of  the  charges  already  cited,  we  are  referred  "to 
the  chapter  '  On  the  Existence  of  God,'  in  Part  11."  This 
chapter  contains  203  pages,  yet  the  reviewer  gives  us  only 
two  quotations.  One  from  page  2*74,  so  broken  from  its 
connection  as  to  give  no  correct  idea  of  Mr.  Watson's  argu- 
ment, and  the  other  from  Ellis,  on  page  272,  in  these 
words:  "  God  is  the  only  way  to  himself;  he  cannot  be  iji 
the  least  come  at,  defined,  or  demonstrated  by  human 
reason." 

I  do  not  see  that  these  words  of  Ellis  teach  anything 
different  from  the  following  scriptures  :  "  No  one  knoweth 
the  Son  but  the  Father ;  neither  knoweth  any  one  the 
Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal 
Him."  .  .  .  .  "  Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  [this 
knowledge]  unto  thee',  but  my  Father,  which  is  in  heaven." 
.  ,  .  .  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only  be- 
gotten Son  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath 
declared  Him."    (Matt,  xi,  27  ;  xvi,  17  ;  John  i,  18.) 

The  question  is  not  as  to  whether  there  is  something 
eternal,  for  that  will  not  admit  of  dispute.  The  question 
is,  as  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  observes,  as  to  the  character  of 
that  eternal.  The  reasoning  of  Ellis,  from  which  the  above 
Avords  are  quoted,  involves  the  simple  question,  whether  it 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


61 


is  in  the  power  of  the  human  reason  to  originate  the  con- 
ception of  the  Eternal  God,  the  God  of  the  Bible,  clothed, 
as  he  is,  with  infinite  perfections,  natural  and  moral ;  whether 
the  unassisted  reason  could  derive  the  knowledge  of  such 
a  being  from  the  phenomena  of  creation.  Mr.  EUis  takes 
the  negative  of  this  question,  and  reasons  thus :  "  Where 
would  the  inquirer  fix  his  beginning  ?  He  is  to  search  for 
something,  he  knows  not  what ;  a  nature  without  known 
properties,  a  being  without  a  name.  It  is  impossible  for 
such  a  person  to  declare  or  imagine  what  it  is  he  would 
discourse  of,  or  inquire  into  ;  a  nature  he  has  not  the  least 
apprehension  of;  a  subject  he  has  not  the  least  glimpse  of, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  which  he  must  separate  from  all  doubt, 
inconsistencies,  and  errors  ;  he  must  demonstrate  without 
one  known  sure  principle  to  ground  it  upon,  and  draw 
certain  necessary  conclusions  w'hereon  to  rest  his  judgment, 
without  the  least  knowledge  of  one  term  or  proposition  to 
fix  his  procedure  upon,  and,  therefore,  can  never*  know 
whether  his  conclusions  be  consequent  or  not  consequent, 
truth  or  falsehood,  which  is  just  the  same  in  science  as  in 
architectui-e,  to  raise  a  building  without  a  foundation." 

Now  it  is  much  easier  to  quote  two  lines  from  this 
noble  production,  and  then  pronounce  its  author  and  its 
admirers  sensationalists,  than  it  is  to  answer  the  manly- 
reasoning  contained  therein  ;  but  while  the  former  is  much 
the  easiest,  the  latter  would  certainly  be  much  the  noblest 
M-ay  of  disposing  of  it,  and  we  think  the  safest  too.  In  the 
mean  time  we  are  free  to  confess  that  we  admire  Ellis  as 
well  as  "Watson,  at  least  so  far  as  the  above  goes,  for 
therein  we  think  he  appears  to  good  advantage. 

But  seeing  the  reviewer  asserts  that  "  a  careful  peru- 
sal "  of  this,  and  the  other  chapters  specitiod,  "  will  be 
decisive  of  this  question  in  every  intelligent  mind,"  we  will 


62 


WATSOn's  XnEOLOGICAL  mSTITDTES 


now  examine  it,  and  see  whether  it  contains  the  error  which 
we  have  failed  to  find  in  the  chapters  "  On  the  Presump- 
tive Evidences."  This  important  chapter  commences  thus : 

"  The  Divine  authority  of  those  writings  which  are 
received  by  Christians  as  a  revelation  of  infallible  truth, 
having  been  established,  our  next  step  is  seriously,  and 
with  simplicity  of  mind,  to  examine  their  contents,  and  to 
collect  from  them  that  amjjle  information  on  religious  and 
moral  subjects  which  they  profess  to  contain,  and  in  which 
it  had  become  necessary  that  the  world  be  supernaturally 
instructed."    Mark,  supernatueally  instructed. 

Such  is  the  work  which  our  author  proposes  to  accom- 
plish in  this  chapter ;  let  this  work,  as  here  specified,  bo 
carefully  noticed  and  kept  in  vieM\  What  is  proposed  in 
this  chapter  is  simply  this :  the  "  Divine  authority  "  of  the 
sacred  writings  being  cstabhshcd,  we  are  "  to  collect  from 
them  that  ample  information  on  religious  an'fl  moral  sub- 
jects Avhich  they  profess  to  contain." 

"  The  doctrine  Avhich  the  first  sentence  in  this  Divine 
revelation  unfolds,"  namely,  "  that  there,  is  a  God,  the 
Creator  0/  heaven  and  earth,''''  is  the  first  doctrine  taken 
up.  "  In  three  distinct  ways,"  he  continues,  "  do  the 
sacred  writers  furnish  us  with  information  on  this  great 
and  essential  subject,  the  existence  and  the  character  of 
God."  Mark  the  knowledge  for  which,  it  is  claimed,  we 
are  indebted  to  a  direct  revelation  from  God  :  the  knoid- 
edge  of  a  God  possessing  the  cuaracter  here  described. 
Tlie  three  ways  in  which  the  sacred  writers  furnish  this 
knowledge  are  thus  specified  :  "  From  the  names  by  which 
he  is  designated ;  from  the  actions  ascribed  to  him ;  and 
from  the  attributes  with  which  he  is  invested  in  their 
invocations  and  praises,  and  in  those  lofty  descriptions  of 
his  nature  which,  under  the  inspiration  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit, 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


63 


they  have  recoi'ded  for  the  instruction  of  the  world  • . 

The  names  of  God  recorded  in  Scripture  convey  at  once 
ideas  of  overwhehning  greatness  and  glory,  mingled  -with 
that  awful  mysteriousness  with  which,  to  all  finite  minds, 
and  especially  to  the  minds  of  mortals,  the  Divine  essence 
and  mode  of  existence  must  ever  be  invested."  Here 
follow  some  of  the  principal  names  of  the  Almighty,  such 
as  Elohim,  Jehovah,  El,  Eiiieh,  Suadd.u,  Adon.  Then 
follow  the  names  of  this  Almighty  Being  as  given  in  the 
thirty-fourth  chapter  of  Exodus,  with  their  import  as  given 
by  Dr.  Adam  Clarke.  Here  our  author  specifies  some  of 
those  sublime  ideas  of  God  which  the  sacred  writers  derive 
from  his  actions.  "  More  at  large,"  he  continues,  "  do  we 
leai-n  what  God  is,  from  the  declarations  of  the  inspired 
writings."  Here  he  furnishes  us  with  numerous  quotations 
from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  containing  declarations 
which  convey  the  most  lofty  conceptions  of  the  Divine 
attributes,  both  natural  and  moral ;  adding :  "  Under  these 
deeply  awful,  but  consolatory  views,  do  the  Scriptures 
present  to  us  the  supreme  object  of  our  worship  and  trust, 
dwelling  upon  each  of  the  above  particulars  with  inimitable 
sublimity  and  beauty  of  language,  and  with  an  inexhaust- 
ible variety  of  illustration  ;  nor  can  we  compare  these 
views  of  the  Divine  nature  with  the  conceptions  of  the 
most  enlightened  of  pagans,  without  feeling  how  much 
reason  we  have  for  everlasting  gratitude  that  a  revelation 
so  explicU  and  so  comprehensive  should  have  been  made 
to  us  on  a  subject  which  only  a  revelation  from  God  him- 
self could  have  made  known."  Mark  the  sum  of  all  that 
is  claimed  in  the  above :  "  only  a  revelation  from  God 
himself"  could  give  us  those  sublime  conceptions  of  the 
nature  and  attributes  of  the  God  -of  the  Bible,  as  here 
specified.    Hence  he  adds :  "  It  is  thus  that  Christian 


64 


Watson's  theological  institutes 


philosophers,  even  when  they  do  not  use  the  language  of 
the  Scriptures,  are  able  to  speak  on  this  great  and  myste- 
rious doctrine  in  language  so  clear  and  with  conceptions  so 
noble  ;  in  a  manner  too  so  equable,  so  different  to  the  sages 
of  antiquity,  who,  if  at  any  time  they  approach  the  truth, 
when  speaking  of  the  Divine  nature,  never  fail  to  mingle 
with  it  some  essentially  erroneous  or  grovelling  concep- 
tion." Confirmatory  of  these  remarks,  some  fine  specimens 
from  the  writings  of  Dr.  Barrow,  Bishop  Pearson,  Lawson, 
and  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  are  now  furnished. 

Our  author  now  notices  the  fact  "that  neither  Moses, 
the  first  of  the  inspired  penmen,  nor  any  of  the  authors  of 
the  succeeding  canonical  books,  enters  into  any  proof  of 
this  first  principle  of  religion,  there  is  a  God.''''  "  There  is 
indeed,"  he  adds,  "  in  the  sacred  volume  no  allusion  to  the 
existence  of  atheistical  sentiments  till  some  ages  after 
Moses,  and  then  it  is  not  quite  clear  whether  speculative  or 
i:>ractical  Atheism  be  spoken  of  From  this  circumstance 
we  learn  that,  previous  to  the  time  of  Moses,  the  idea  of 
one  sujn-eme  and  infinitely  perfect  God  was  familiar  to  men, 
that  it  had  descended  to  them  from  the  earliest  ages ;  and 
also  that  it  was  a  truth  of  original  revelation,  and  not  one 
which  sages  of  preceding  times  had  wrought  out  by 
rational  investigation  and  deduction."  "  No  man,"  he 
observes,  "  claims  to  have  made  any  such  discovery ;  had 
any  one  man  done  so,  some  grateful  mention  of  so  great  a 
sage,  of  so  celebrated  a  moral  teacher,  would  have  been 
made."  "  If  those  views  of  God  which  are  found  in  the 
Pentateuch  had  been  discovered  by  the  successful  investi- 
gations of  wise  men  among  the  ancients,  the  progress  of  this 
wonderful  discovery  would  have  been  marked  by  Closes." 
The  way  in  which  a  clear  knowledge  of  the  God  of  the  Bible 
was  communicated  to  man,  is  thus  stated  :  "  The  first  man, 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED, 


65 


\\  c  arc  informed,  knew  God,  not  only  from  his  works,  but 
1 ) y  sensible  manifestation  and  converse ;  the  same  Divine 
a[)pearance8  were  made  to  Noah,  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  to 
Jacob ;  and  when  Moses  wrote,  persons  were  still  living 
who  had  conversed  with  those  who  conversed  with  God  or 
were  descended  from  the  same  families  to  whom  God,  '  at 
sundry  times,''  had  appeared  in  visible  glory,  or  in  angelic 
forms.  These  Divine  manifestations  were  also  matters  of 
public  notoriety  among  the  primitive  famiUes  of  mankind." 
The  idea  being  once  communicated  to  mankind,  it  "  was 
confii-med,"  he  adds,  "by  every  natural  object  which  they 
saw  around  them." 

"  That  the  idea  of  the  Supreme  First  Cause  was  at  first 
obtained  by  the  exercise  of  reason,  is  thus  contradicted  by 
the  facts,  that  the  first  man  received  the  knowledge  of  God 
by  sensible  converse  with  him,  and  that  this  doctrine  was 
transmitted,  with  the  confirmation  of  successive  visible 
manifestations,  to  the  early  ancestors  of  all  nations. 
"Whether  the  cliscovery,  therefore,  of  the  simple  truth  of 
the  existence  of  a  first  cause  be  within  the  compass  of 
human  powers,  is  a  point  which  cannot  be  determined  by 
matter  of  fact;  because  it  may  be  proved  that  those 
nations  by  whom  that  doctrine  has  been  acknowledged, 
had  their  origin  from  a  common  stock,  resident  in  that 
part  of  the  world  in  which  the  primitive  revelations  were 
given.  They  were  therefore  never  in  circumstances  in 
which  such  an  experiment  upon  the  power  or  weakness  of 
the  human  muid  could  be  made."  It  is  declared  probable 
that  there  are  some  in  whose  minds  "  the  idea  of  a  Supreme 
Being  is  entirely  obliterated ;  although  some  notion  of  spir- 
itual existences  superior  in  power  to  man  still  remains  ; "  but 
our  author  declares  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  no  man,  having  lost 
the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  has  ever  been  able,  of  him- 


6G  watson's  theological  DsSTitutes 

self,  to  recover  it  again.  He  then  finally  closes  thus :  "  Mat- 
ter of  fact  docs  not  therefore  support  the  notion,  that  the 
existence  of  God  is  discoverable  by  the  unassisted  faculties 
of  man  ;  and  there  is,  I  conceive,  very  slender  reason  to  ad- 
mit the  abstract  probabihty."  (Pp.  263,to  271.)  Such  is  the 
modest  conclusion  reached  by  Mr.  Watson,  after  presenting 
such  arguments  and  facts  as  the  above.  Yet  in  the  face  of 
all  this,  the  author  of  the  review,  page  188,  represents  him 
as  saying  on  page  270,  vol.  i,  that  "  the  simjile  truth  of  the 
existence  of  a  first  cause  is  not  within  the  compass  of 
human  powers."  There  is  no  such  statement  there  !  The 
words  of  Watson  on  page  270,  and  his  final  conclusion  on 
page  271,  we  have  given  above :  the  reader  can  compare. 
And  as  to  the  errors  which  the  reviewer  professes  to  have 
found  in  this  chapter,  we  will  only  say  here,  as  yet  we 
have  found  none  of  them.  With  Watson  we  claim  it  to  be 
a  simple  fact  that  the  knowledge  of  God  was  originally 
communicated  to  man  in  the  way  here  specified,  that 
Moses  found  man  in  possession  of  the  idea,  that  there  is  no 
intimation  of  any  man  claiming  the  honor  of  having  origi- 
nated it,  that  where  the  knowledge  of  God  was  once  lost, 
unassisted  reason  has  never  recovered  it  again.  When 
opposite  facts  are  adduced  we  wLU  conclude  Mr.  Watson  is 
wrong  ;  as  yet  we  hold  that  his  arguments^  his  facts,  and 
his  conclusions  arc  unrefuted,  and,  in  fact,  untouched ! 

On  page  271,  Mr.  Watson  goes  on  to  reason  thus:  "If 
therefore  we  suppose  a  first  cause  to  be  discoverable  by 
human  investigation,  we  must  seek  for  the  instances  among 
a  people  Avhose  civilization  and  intellectual  culture  have 
roused  the  mind  from  its  torpor,  and  given  it  an  interest  in 
abstract  and  philosophic  truth ;  for  to  a  people  so  circimi- 
stanced  as  never  to  have  heard  of  God,  the  question  of  the 
existence  of  a  first  cause  must  be  one  of  mere  philosophy." 


AJSD  THE  BIBLE  DETEITDED. 


G7 


Bat  where  the  idea  of  a  God  is  not,  he  argues,  men  could 
never  rise  to  such  a  state  of  mental  culture  and  civiUzation. 
l-'or  "  a  mere  barbarian,"  "  without  "  any  "  degree  of  edu- 
cation," would  be  incapable  "  of  such  a  course  of  inquiry  as 
might  lead  him  to  a  knowledge  of  God."  A  person  so  ig- 
norant and  degraded  "  would  be  wholly  occupied  with  the 
gratification  of  his  appetites  or  his  sloth.  Should  we  how- 
ever suppose  it  possible,  that  those  who  had  no  previous 
knowledge  of  God,  or  of  superior  invisible  powers,  might 
be  brought  to  the  habits  of  civil  life,  and  be  engaged  in  the 
pursuit  of  various  knowledge  (which  itself  however  is  very 
incredible),  it  would  still  remain  a  question  whether,  pro- 
vided no  idea  from  tradition  or  instruction  had  been  sug- 
gested of  the  existence  of  spiritual  superior  beings,  or  of  a 
Supreme  Creator  or  Ruler,  such  a  truth  would  be  within  the 
reach  of  men,  even  in  an  imjjerfect  form.  We  have  already 
seen,  that  a  truth  may  appear  exceedingly  simple,  import- 
ant, and  evident,  when  once  kno^ra,  and  on  this  account 
its  demonstration  may  be  considered  easy,  which  neverthe- 
less has  been  the  result  of  much  previous  research  on  the 
part  of  the  discoverer.  The  abundant  rational  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  a  God,  which  may  now  be  easUy  collected, 
and  which  is  so  convincing,  is  therefore  no  proof  that  with- 
out instruction  from  heaven  the  human  mind  would  ever 
have  made  the  discovery."  Here  follows  the  quotation  from 
Ellis,  which  we  have  already  given.  Also  quotations  from 
Hare,  Van  Mildert,  and  Gleig's  "  Stackhouse  Intro.,"  each 
the  production  of  a  master  mind,  and  all  designed  to  estab- 
lish the  same  proposition ;  yet  our  author,  with  great  mod- 
esty, simply  says  of  the  whole :  "  These  observations  have 
great  weight,  and  though  we  allow  that  the  argument 
which  proves  that  the  effects  with  which  we  are  surrounded 
must  have  been  caused,  and  thus  leads  us  up  through  a 


G8  watson's  theological  institutes 


chain  of  subox'dinate  causes  to  one  First  Cause,  has  in  it  a 
simplicity,  an  obviousness,  and  a  force,  Avhicli  when  we  are 
previously  furnished  with  the  idea  of  God,  makes  it  at  first 
sight  diificult  to  conceive,  that  men,  under  any  degree  of 
cultivation,  should  be  inadequate  to  it ;  yet,  if  the  human 
mind  ever  commenced  such  an  inquiry  at  all,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  it  would  rest  in  the  notion  of  an  eternal  suc- 
cession of  causes  and  elFects,  rather  than  acqnii-e  the  ideas 
of  creation  in  the  proper  sense,  and  of  a  Supreme  Cre- 
ator." 

The  amount  is  this :  to  be  able  to  investigate  so  as  to 
originate  a  knowledge  of  God  implies  a  state  of  mind  that 
we  have  no  reason  to  believe  could  exist  where,  as  yet,  the 
idea  of  a  God  did  not  exist.  But  should  we  even  suj^pose 
this  possible,  it  would  still  remain  a  question  whether  such 
a  discovery  were  possible ;  for  if  such  a  mind  should  ever 
commence  "  such  an  inquiry  at  all,  it  is  highly  probable 
that  it  would  rest  in  the  notion  of  an  eternal  succession  of 
causes  and  effects,  rather  than  acquire  the  ideas  of  creation 
in  the  proper  sense,  and  of  a  Supreme  Creator."  In  proof  of 
this  he  says  :  "  Scarcely  any  of  the  j^hilosophers  of  tlie  most 
inquisitive  ages  of  Greece,  or  those  of  their  followers  at 
Kome,  though  with  the  advantage  of  traditions  conveying 
the  knowledge  of  God,  seem  to  have  been  capable  of  con- 
ceiving of  creation  out  of  nothing,  and  they  consequently 
admitted  the  eternity  of  matter.  This  was  equally  the 
case  with  the  theistical,  the  atheistical,  and  the  polytheist- 
ical  philosophers.  It  was  not  among  them  a  subject  of  dis- 
pute ;  but  taken  for  a  point  settled  and  not  to  be  contra- 
dicted, that  matter  was  eternal,  and  could  not  therefore  be 
created."  In  support  of  this  the  following  quotation  from 
Leland's  "  Necessity  of  Revelation  "  is  given  by  Mr.  Wat- 
son :  "  Few,  if  any,  of  the  ancient  pagan  philosophers  ac- 


AND  THE  BroLE  DEFENDED. 


69 


knowledged  God  to  be,  in  the  most  proper  sense,  the  Cre- 
ator of  the  world.  By  calling  him  Arjixiovpyos,  '  the  maker 
of  the  world,'  they  did  not  mean  that  he  brought  it  ont  of 
non-existence  into  being,  but  only  that  he  built  it  out  of 
pre-existent  materials,  and  disposed  it  into  a  regular  form 
and  order."  "  This  was  the  opinion  of  Plato,"  says  Mr. 
W.,  vol.  i,  p.  21,  "who  has  been  called  the  Moses  of  philos- 
ophers. Through  the  whole  Timcens,  Plato  supposes  two 
eternal  and  independent  causes  of  all  things  :  one,  that  by 
which  all  things  are  made,  which  is  God ;  the  other,  that 
from  which  all  things  are  made,  which  is  matter.  Dr.  Cud- 
worth  has  in  vain  attempted  to  clear  Plato  of  this  charge. 
Tlie  learned  Dr.  Thomas  Burnet,  who  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  opinions  of  the  ancients,  says  that  '  the  Ionic, 
Pythagoric,  Platonic,  and  Stoic,  all  agreed  in  asserting  the 
eternity  of  matter  ;  and  that  the  doctrine,  that  matter  was 
created  out  of  nothing,  seems  to  have  been  imknown  to  the 
philosophers,  and  is  one  of  which  they  had  no  notion. 
Aristotle  asserted  the  eternity  of  the  world,  both  in.  matter 
and  form  too,  which  was  but  an  easy  deduction  from  the 
former  principle,  and  is  sufficiently  in  proof  of  its  atheistical 
tendency."  The  fact  is,  this  idea,  and  a  proper  idea  of  the 
true  God,  cannot  possibly  exist  in  the  same  mind  at  the 
same  time ;  either  one  must  necessarily  exclude  the  other. 
Hence  all  who  believed  thus  must  have  been  ignorant  of  the 
true  God. 

"  Since  the  revelation  of  truth  to  man,"  continues  our 
author,  "  philosophy  has  been  able  to  adduce  a  very  satis- 
factory argument  "  against  the  above  notion ;  "  but,  though 
it  is  not  a  very  recondite  one,  it  was  never  discovered  by 
philosophy  while  unaided  by  the  Scriptures.  In  like  man- 
ner philosophy  can  noio  furnish  cogent  arguments  against 
an  infinite  succession  of  causes  and  effects ;  but  it  does  not 


70  "WATSON's  theological  LNSTirtlTES 

appear  probable  that  they  could  have  been  apprehended 
by  those  to  whom  the  very  notion  of  a  First  Cause  had  not 
been  intimated.  If,  however,  it  were  conceded  that  some 
glimmering  of  this  great  truth  might,  by  induction,  have 
been  discovered  by  contemplative  minds  thus  circum- 
stanced, by  what  means  could  they  have  demonstrated  to 
themselves  that  that  great  collection  of  bodies  which  we 
call  the  world  had  but  one  Creator  ;  that  he  is  an  incorpo- 
real spirit ;  that  he  is  eternal,  self-existent,  immortal,  and 
independent  ?  Certain  it  is,  that  the  argument  a  posteriori 
does  not  of  itself  fully  confirm  all  these  conclusions ;  and 
the  argument  ci  priori,  when  directed  to  these  mysterious 
points,  is  not,  with  all  the  advantages  which  we  enjoy,  so 
satisfactory  as  to  leave  no  rational  ground  of  doubt  as  to 
its  conclusiveness.  No  sober  man,  we  apprehend,  would 
be  content  with  that  as  the  only  foundation  of  his  faith  and 
hope." 

Now,  after  producing  all  these  fine  arguments  on  the 
topics  here  specified,  and  after  corroborating  them  with  so 
many  facts  as  to  what  the  wisest  of  the  heathen  philoso- 
phers did  and  did  not  believe,  and  as  to  what  they  utterly 
failed  to  discover ;  our  author,  with  his  characteristic 
modesty  and  caution,  only  questions  the  possibility  of  fallen 
man  being  able  to  originate  the  idea  of  a  creation,  and  of  a 
creator,  in  the  proper  sense.  This  much  however  he  does 
assert,  finall}'-,  viz.,  that  "  the  argument  a 2)osteriori  docs  not 
of  itself  fully  confirm  all  these  conclusions  [specified  page 
274,  vol.  i]  ;  and  the  argument  a  2)'>'iori,  when  directed  to 
these  mysterious  points,  is  not,  with  all  the  advantages 
which  we  enjoy,  so  satisfactory  as  to  leave  no  rational 
ground  of  doubt  as  to  its  conclusiveness."  Let  those  who 
please  take  the  aflirraative  of  these  questions,  for  our  jiart 
we  heartily  join  with  Watson  in  the  negative :  and  we  as 


AND  THE  I31ELE  DEFENDED. 


71 


heartily  unite  with  him  in  saying,  "  No  sober  man,  we  ap- 
in-oheud,  would  be  content  with  that  as  the  only  foundation 
Oi  his  faith  and  hope."  The  truth  is,  if  Mr.  Watson's  posi- 
tion in  every  instance  Avere  fairly  stated  and  opposed,  we 
would  be  willing  to  leave  the  whole  with  the  intelligent 
reader,  without  any  fear  as  to  the  result.  But  while  Mr. 
"Watson  simply  questions  the  possibihty  of  fallen  man's 
rising  "  to  a  stnte  of  civil  and  scientific  cultivation,"  with- 
out even  the  idea  of  a  God,  and  then,  assuming  this  to  be 
possible,  simply  says  "it  would  stiU  remain  a  question" 
whether  by  his  investigations  he  would  reach  the  idea  of 
creation  and  creator  in  the  proper  sense,  or  whether  be 
"  would  rest  in  the  notion  of  an  eternal  succession  of  causes 
and  effects ; "  I  say  while  Mr.  Watson  simply  does  this,  j^ro- 
ducing,  as  some  of  his  reasons  for  taking  this  ground,  the 
unsuccessful  efforts  of  the  wisest  philosophers  of  antiquity, 
Mr.  Cocker  represents  him  as  assertuig  what  he  never  did 
assert,  as  we  have  already  shown,  and  will  show  more  fully 
immediately.  That  man  had  the  idea  originally  and  direct- 
ly from  God  himself,  and,  consequently,  that  he  had  not 
the  chance  to  originate  it  even  if  he  originally  had  the 
ability,  and  that  he  never  has,  by  his  unassisted  reason,  re- 
covered the  idea  when  once  it  was  lost,  Mr.  Watson  asserts 
to  be  facts !  And,  in  harmony  herewith,  he  denies  (page 
274)  that  the  idea  of  God  is  innate.  "  If  indeed  the  idea 
of  God  were  wna^e,"  he  says,  "as  some  have  contended, 
the  question  would  be  set  at  rest.  But  then  every  human 
being  would  be  in  possession  of  it.  Of  this  there  is  not 
only  no  proof  at  all,  but  the  evidence  of  fact  is  against  it ; 
and  the  doctrine  of  innate  ideas  may  with  confidence  be 
pronomiced  a  mere  theory,  assumed  to  support  favorite 
notions,  but  contradicted  by  all  experience."  Mark,  he  still 
deals  in  facts ;  that  every  human  being  is  in  possession  of 


72 


Watson's  theological  institutes 


the  idea  of  God,  which  would  be  the  fact  if  the  idea  were 
innate,  is  not  only  destitute  of  all  proof,  but  the  evidence 
of  fact  is  against  it."  The  following  arc  some  of  the  facts 
adduced.  "  Peter  the  wild  boy,  who  in  the  beginning  of 
the  last  century  was  found  in  a  wood  in  Germany,  far  from 
having  an  innate  sense  of  God  or  religion,  seemed  to  be  in- 
capable of  instruction ;  and  the  aboriginal  mhabitants  of 
New  Holland  are  found,  at  this  day,  in  a  state  of  knowl- 
edge but  little  superior,  and  certainly  have  no  idea  of  the 
existence  of  one  Supreme  Creator."  And  this,  obseiwe,  is 
the  point  m  dispute.  In  favor  of  this,  argues  our  author 
there  is  "  no  proof  at  all,"  there  is  not  one  fact  to  support 
it :  while  against  it  there  is  much  evidence,  there  are  posi- 
tive facts ;  and  some  of  the  facts  are  here  given.  And  to 
these  may  be  added  all  the' atheists  that  ever  lived,  all  those 
fools  who  have  said  in  their  hearts,  "  There  is  no  God ; " 
for  if  the  idea  of  God  is  innate,  is  intuitive,  as  Mr.  Watson 
denies,  and  as  his  opponents  assert,  there  could  be  no  athe- 
ists, and  to  assert  this  is  to  assert  what  is  contrary  to  matter 
of  fact  and  the  word  of  God.  Yet  notwithstanding  this, 
some  have  doubted,  or  at  least  professed  to  doubt,  whether 
there  ever  was  an  atheist,  and  they  have  done  so,  probably, 
rather  than  give  up  the  notion  here  opposed ;  for  if  this 
notion,  that  the  idea  of  God  is  innate,  be  true,  there  could 
be  no  atheist.  But  surely  Vanini  was  an  atheist,  and  so 
obstinate  was  he  that  rather  than  admit  the  being  of  a  God 
he  sulfercd  himself  to  be  burnt  at  Paris,  February  19th, 
1619.  And  what  better  was  Rabshakeh,  or  his  master  the 
king  of  Assyria,  who  said  they  had  whipped  "the  gods  of 
the  nations,"  and  the  God  of  Israel  should  fare  no  better  ? 
Their  knowledge,  whether  intuitive  or  not,  served  them  to 
little  purpose  when  they  could  see  no  difference  between 
the  God  of  Israel  and  the  gods  of  Ilamath,  Arphad,  Seph- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFE>T)ED. 


73 


arvaini,  Gozan,  Haran,  and  Rezoph :  these  gods,  said  the 
kiug  of  Assyria,  conld  not  deliver  their  people  out  of  my 
}iand,  or  out  gf  the  hand  of  my  fathers;  neither  can  the 
God  of  Israel !  And  this,  observe,  is  a  fair  specimen  of 
the  intuitions  of  the  heathen  generally.  I  have  been  at  the 
trouble  of  searching  out  the  substance  of  all  that  is  known 
of  the  religion  and  -n-orship  of  the  ancient  heathen,  and  could 
fill  a  volume  with  their  gross  and  absurd  ideas  of  the  objects 
of  their  worship,  and  in  the  whole  volume  one  correct  idea 
of  the  true  God  would  not  be  found.  Occasionally  I  find 
some  correct  ideas,  evidently  communicated  through  Israel 
from  Israel's  God  ;  but,  as  Mr.  TVatson  says,  they  soon  cor- 
rupted it,  for  in  every  nation  they  had  "  gods  many,  and 
lords  many,"  and  the  mind  that  embraced  the  idea  of  a 
plurality  of  gods,  could  not,  of  course,  at  the  same  time, 
embrace  the  idea  of  the  God  of  the  Bible.  "  To  show  that 
there  are  real  literal  atheists  in  the  world,"  Mr.  "Wesley 
mentions  two  whom  he  knew,  and  who  had  confidently 
denied  the  being  of  a  God  for  many  years :  they  both  lived 
in  London.  Such  too  were  all  those  "  hell-fire  clubs,"  as 
they  were  called,  in  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  in  the 
last  century.  Such  too  were  Altamont,  D'Alembert,  and 
Diderot,  notwithstanding  theii-  various  abilities,  natural  and 
acquired  :  the  first  mentioned  especially  had  great  abihties, 
yet  he  was  an  obstinate  atheist.  And,  in  short,  such  were 
multitudes  at  that  time  in  Great  Britain  and  France,  but 
whom  we  are  in  the  habit  of  denominating  infidels ;  they 
were,  however,  evidently  downright  atheists.  Hence  Hume, 
as  Mr.  Watson  observes,  denies  the  axiomatic  truth  that 
"  Xothing  exists  or  comes  to  pass  without  a  cause."  And 
I  really  do  not  think  we  would  be  fiir  astray,  if  we  were  to 
class  infidels  generally  with  atheists.  I  mean  such  as  those 
whom  I  have  heard  say,  "  Xature  is  God  and  God  is  nature." 
4 


74  watson's  theological  institutes 

The  late  Robert  Owen  gives  us  the  meaning  of  such  phra- 
seology in  the  lips  of  infidels,  in  his  "  Book  of  the  New  Moral 
World,"  pages  C5  and  66,  where  he  denies  that  there  is  a 
"  personal  deity,"  and  says,  "  truth  is  nature,  and  nature 
God ;  God  is  truth,  and  truthis  God."  With  these  and  similar 
facts,  meeting  us  among  every  people  in  every  country  and 
age,  and  scattered  over  almost  every  page  of  the  history  of 
our  fallen  race,  we  are  forced  to  say  with  Watson  that  "  the 
doctrine  of  innate  ideas  may  with  confidence  be  i^rouounced 
a  mere  theory,  assumed  to  supjoort  favorite  notions,  but 
contradicted  by  aU  experience." 

That  man  is  utterly  incapable  of  originating  those  sub- 
lime ideas  of  God  which  are  developed  in  the  book  of  rev- 
elation, is  asserted  by  Watson  with  the  utmost  confidence ; 
nor  did  we  suppose  that  any  would  join  issue  with  him 
here,  unless  such  as  Lord  Herbert  and  his  followers,  who 
lay  it  down  as  a  first  principle  of  their  religioiis  system  that 
"  everything  necessary  to  be  believed  is  discoverable  by 
the  natural  faculties."  From  this  principle  the  conclusion 
is  legitimately  reached  that  a  revelation  is  unnecessary. 
"  This  specious  kind  of  infidelity,"  says  Mr.  Watson  (page 
236,  vol.  i),  "known  by  the  name  of  '•Deism^  made  its  ajv 
pearance  in  Italy  and  France  about  the  middle  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  in  England  early  in  the  seventeenth. 
iJnder  this  appellation,  and  that  of  '  The  Religion  of 
Nature,'  each  adopted  to  deceive  the  unwary,  the  attack 
upon  Christianity  was  at  first  cautious,  and  accompanied 
with  many  professions  of  regard  for  its  manifold  excellen- 
cies." Concerning  the  above  principle  of  Lord  Herbert 
and  his  followers,  which,  indeed,  is  the  very  basis  of  aii 
infidelity,  Mr.  Watson  further  says,  on  page  237:  "The 
history  of  infidelity  from  this  time  is  a  striking  comment 
upon  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  "  But  evil  men  and  seducers 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


75 


shall  wax  worse  and  worse,  deceiving  and  being  deceived.'' " 
In  proof  of  this,  he  mentions,  among  other  things,  the  fact 
that  "  all  Lord  Herbert's  five  articles  of  natural  religion 
have  been  questioned  or  given  up  by  those  who  followed 
him  in  his  fundamental  principle,  i.  e.,  '  that  nothing  can  be 
admitted  which  is  not  discoverable  by  our  natural  facul- 
ties.' "  His  five  articles  were  :  There  is  a  Siqyi'eme  God — 
Ife  is  chieflxj  to  he  xcorshipped — Piety  and  virtue  are  the 
principal  part  of  his  xcorshij) — Repentance  expiates  offence 
— There  is  a  state  of  future  reicards  and  punishments.  But 
even  these  piinciples  were  not  retained  by  those  who 
adopted  his  first  principle  ;  hence  Mr.  Watson  says,  "  be- 
tween this  grand  principle  of  error  and  absolute  atheism 
there  are  but  a  few  stej^s."  It  is  in  opposition  to  this  prin- 
ciple of  error,  which  is  the  i^ery  basis  of  infidelity,  that  Mr. 
Watson  asserts  our  indebtedness  to  revelation  for  a  correct 
Icnowledge  of  God,  particularly  for  those  sublime  ideas  of 
his  infinite  perfections,  developed  in  the  word  of  God,  and 
•which  we  could  not  possibly  originate  or  derive  from  the 
works  of  God.  For  this  "  knowledge  of  the  existence  of 
God  and  of  his  attributes  we  owe  to  revelation  alone." 
(Page  274.)  Accordingly,  he  says  on  this  same  page,  "  We 
are  all  conscious  that  we  gain  the  knowledge  of  God  by 
instruction^  and  we  observe  that,  in  proportion  to  the 
want  of  instruction,  men  are  ignorant,  as  of  other  things, 
so  of  God."  This  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  attributes,  for 
which  we  are  indebted  to  revelation,  and  which  Ave  received 
by  instruction,  Mr.  Watson  specifies  in  a  preceding  part  of 
this  chapter,  pages  266  and  267,  and  gives  us  quotations 
from  Barrow,  Pearson,  Lawson,  and  Newton,  to  show  that, 
for  the  correct  and  sublime  concei^tions  of  God  therein 
contained,  they  are  indebted  to  revelation ;  seeing,  as  he 
shows,  that  many  of  the  heathen  philosophers  who,  in 


76  avatson's  theological  institutes 

every  other  respect,  were  fully  their  equal,  were,  neverthe- 
less, pamfally  destitute  of  this  knowledge,  so  much  so  as  to 
assert  the  eternity  of  matter,  and  a  plurality  of  gods,  and 
doubt,  if  not  deny,  everything  essential  to  a  correct  reli- 
gious system.  Such  is  Mr.  Watson's  position,  as  set  forth, 
and  we  think  established,  in  this  chapter,  by  facts,  by  ex2^e- 
rience,  by  observation,  and  by  the  loord  of  God.  If  his 
opponents  can  prove  that  these  four  witnesses  are  in  favor 
of  their  position  and  against  his,  we  will  embrace  the  doc- 
trine of  innate  ideas,  which  we  now  oppose ;  but,  as  we 
believe  this  never  can  be  done,  and  are  sure  it  never  has 
been  done,  we  purpose  to  defend  Watson  and  his  position 
to  the  last. 

Just  here  we  pause  to  make  two  remarks  which  result 
from  these  investigations.  The  grand  principle  of  Lord 
Herbert,  from  which  infidclity^ias  legitimately  flowed,  and 
between  which  and  atheism  Mr.  Watson  says  there  are  but 
a  few  steps ;  I  say  this  great  principle  of  Lord  Herbert, 
and  the  transcendentalism  which  we  here  oppose,  and 
which  Mr,  Cocker  sets  forth  and  attempts  to  defend  in  the 
article  under  consideration,  are  essentially  one!  To  be 
convinced  of  this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  compare  that  priu- 
ciijle,  as  quoted  above,  with  those  quotations  which  we 
have  already  given  from  the  article  under  review,  and  also 
with  those  which  we  will  now  give.  Any  one  who  will  be 
at  the  trouble  of  comparing  will  see,  I  am  convinced,  that 
Mr.  Cocker  claims  as  much  in  favor  of  our  natural  faculties 
as  Lord  Herbert  does.  Take  the  following  quotations  in 
proof : 

"  The  idea  of  God  is  a  necessary  deduction  from  the 
facts  of  the  universe  and  the  primary  intuitions  of  the 

mind  It  is  present  in  every  human  mind  as  the 

germ  of  the  oak  is  in  the  acorn  And  it  is  developed 


AST)  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


77 


into  scientific  form  by  the  necessary  laws  of  intellect,  as 
the  germ  of  the  oak  in  the  acorn  is  fully  developed  under 
llio  fixed  and  determinative  laws  of  vegetative  life."  (Re- 
^icw,  page  197.)  "Tlicre  are  specific  forms  into  which 
iMir.iiin  thought  muiit  necessarily  develop  itself,  just  as  a 
uiaiii  of  wheat  must  necessarily  develop  itself  into  the 
lilade,  and  the  ear,  and  the  full  corn  in  the  ear;  or  as  an 
arorn  must  develoji  itself  into  the  majestic  oak.  There  are 
l  iiiidamental  laws  of  the  human  intelligence  which  constrain 
man,  in  view  of  the  facts  of  the  universe,  to  form  certain 

necessary  judgments  and  beliefs  The  human  intelli- 

nee  is  configured  and  correlated  to  eternal  principles  of 
(  rder,  and  right,  and  good,  as  they  exist  in  the  Infinite  In- 
telligence." (P.  183.)  So  much  so  that  "the  mind  intui- 
tively apprehends  them  [our  acts]  as  right  or  icro7iff,  and 
spontaneously  approves  or  condemns  them.  This  distinc- 
tion in  the  moral  quality  of  actions  is  felt  to  be  independent 
of  the  mind  which  perceives  it  and  of  any  mutable  condi- 
tion of  things."  See  much  more  of  the  same  kind  on  page 
205,  and  which  we  quoted  in  another  connection.  Much 
more  follows,  but  we  only  add  the  following :  "  Accom- 
panying this  perception  of  the  immutable  distinction  be- 
tween virtue  and  vice,  Ave  have  the  consciousness  of  its 
being  our  duty  to  avoid  the  one  and  perform  the  other. 
We  feel  upon  us  an  obligation  which  is  imperative.  "Wo 
have  also  an  abiding  con-sdction  that  moral  good  is  reward- 
able,  and  that  vice  merits  And,  finally,  wo 
have  a  conscious  apprehension  of  a  future  retribution.'''' 

Of  course  we  could  easily  contradict  these  high-sound- 
ing assertions,  as  we  have  done  before,  by  flxcts ;  but  this 
is  not  what  we  aim  at  just  now  ;  we  only  request  the  reader 
to  compare  these,  and  the  quotations  of  a  similar  character 
formerly  given,  with  Lord  Herbert's  grand  principle  quoted 


78 


watson's  theological  institutes 


above,  and  we  have  uo  doubt  that  he  "will  be  convinced,  as 
we  are,  that  the  transcendentcdisni  which  we  here  oppose 
is  none  other  than  the  Ilerbertism  which  Watson  opposed. 
It  comes  now,  as  it  did  then,  Avith  many  fair  professions 
and  imposing  titles,  but  it  is  the  same  deadly  error. 
We  will  simply  add  the  single  remark,  that  there  is  one 

-  point  in  which  our  reviewer  claims  more  for  the  natural 
flxculties  than  Lord  IT.  does.  The  latter  only  declares  man 
to  be  capable  of  these  attainments  by  the  exercise  of  his 
"  natural  faculties,"  Avhile  the  former  declares  all  the  attain- 
ments, which  he  specifies,  to  be  the  7iecessary  results  of  neces- 
sary and  fixed  laws  !    The  one  says  he  may,  the  other  says 

,  he  must  be  all  this,  independent  of  revelation. 

Our  second  remark  is  this  :  If  Lord  Herbert's  docti'ine 
and  the  transcendentalism  here  opposed  are  essentially  one, 
and  if  the  former  led  to  infidelity,  and  is  only  a  few  steps 
from  atheism,  as  Mr.  Watson  asserts,  and  history  shows, 
the  conclusion  is  inevitable  ;  this  same  transcendentalism 
leads  to  infidelity,  notwithstanding  its  foir  pretensions  and 
high  sounding-titles.  That  the  principle  adopted  and  ad- 
vocated by  Lord  Herbert  led  to  infidelity  in  England,  and 
to  atheism,  too,  is  a  fact  that  will  not  be  disputed  by  any 
one  acquainted  with  the  history  of  those  times.  These 
teachings  first  and  prmcipally  corrupted  the  higher  ranks 
of  society,  amongst  whom  were  many  real  scholars,  possess- 
ed of  varied  and  splendid  abilities.  This  "Religion  of  Na- 
ture," this  Deism,  this 2yhilosophy,  as  it  was  variously  called, 
was  admirably  adapted  to  flatter  their  vanity,  which  in- 
creased more  and  more  till  the  old  Book,  called  the  Bible, 
was  utterly  rejected  as  only  suitable  for  the  vulgar  and  the 
superstitious  ;  while  the  Book  of  Nature,  which  always  lay 
open  before  them,  was  so  worthy  the  study  of  the  philoso- 
pher, and  fully  competent  to  teach  them  all  they  desired 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


79 


to  know  of  God  and  religion.  In  this  book,  they  contended, 
everything  7iecessary  to  be  believed  is  discoverable  by  our 
natural faculties.  Amongst  those  who  embraced,  and  were 
almost  or  utterly  ruined  by  these  teachings,  were  the  Hon. 
Francis  Newport,  the  Earl  of  Chesterfield,  Sir  John  Pringle, 
Lord  Littleton,  the  Earl  of  Rochester,  William  Emmerson, 
David  Hnme,  Soame  Jenyugs,  Captam  John  Lee,  and 
many  others,  amongst  whom  was  an  accomplished  youth, 
an  account  of  whom  is  given  us  imder  the  fictitious  name 
of  Antitheus.  Some  of  these  were  reclaimed,  some  became 
obstinate  atheists,  and  some  ended  their  miserable  life  in 
the  most  terrible  agonies  of  utter  despair.  And  all  this  re- 
sulted from  teachings  Avhich,  in  their  beginning,  were  com- 
paratively plausible,  and  with  which  the  teachings  of  mod- 
ern transcendentalism  are,  as  we  have  shown,  essentially 
one ;  and,  consequently,  have  the  same  tendency  ;  because 
they  lead  from  the  Bible,  and  ascribe  to  the  naturcd  man, 
and  to  the  Book  of  Nature,  what  they  do  not  possess  ;  be- 
cause they  lead  man  to  seek  in  the  natural,  what  can  only 
be  found  in  the  supernatural.  In  short,  they  lead  away 
from  God  Avhile  they  profess  to  lead  to  him ;  they  ead 
away  from  "  God  in  Christ,"  who  is  "  the  Avay,  the  truth, 
and  the.  life ; "  they  lead  away  from  the  Holy  S^Hrit  by 
teaching  that  the  unassisted  naturcd  faculties  can  do  what 
they  cannot  possibly  do  vnthout  the  assistance  of  that 
Spirit.  They  lead  away  from  the  faith  of  the  Christian  to 
that  of  the  Deist,  by  teaching  that  faith  cow.eth  by  seeing 
the  works  of  God ;  ichile  Paid  teaches  that  faith  cometh  by 
hearing  the  icord  of  God.  Thus  we  turn  the  tables  by 
showing  that  transcendentalism — not  Watson's  philosophy 
— tends  to  infidelity,  if  not  to  "  pure  materialism."  And 
in  proof  of  this  we  have  given  some  terrible  instances  in 
connection  with  the  history  of  this  error  in  England,  and 


80  WATSOn's  theological  INSTITtPTES 

could  give  still  more  numerous  and  terrible  instances  con- 
nected with  its  history  in  France. 

Having  denied  that  the  knowledge  of  the  being  and 
attributes  of  God  is  innate^  and  having  asserted  our  indebt- 
edness to  revelation  for  that  knowledge,  and  having  given 
his  reasons  for  so' doing,  Mr.  Watson  concludes  thus  :  "But 
being  now  discovered,  the  rational  evidence  is  both  copious 
and  irresistible ;  so  much  so  that  Atheism  has  never  been 
able  to  make  much  progress  among  mankind  where  this 
revelation  has  been  preserved."  In  proof  of  this  position 
Mr.  Watson  gives  the  following  quotation  from  Ellis,  and 
we  think  it  is  a  very  forcible  expression  of  the  same  senti- 
ment :  "  Tell  men  there  is  a  God,  and  their  mind  embraces 
it  as  a  necessary  truth  ;  unfold  his  attributes,  and  they  will 
see  the  explanation  of  them  in  his  works.  When  the  foun- 
dation is  laid  sure  and  firm  that  there  is  a  God,  and  his 
will  the  cause  of  all  things,  and  nothing  made  but  by  his 
special  appointment  and  command,  then  the  order  of  be- 
ings will  fill  their  minds  with  a  due  sense  of  the  Divine 
Majesty."  The  amount  is  this  :  the  Book  of  Nature  is  read 
in  the  light  of  the  torch  of  revelation ;  in  that  light  "  the 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament 
showeth  his  handiwork." 

Mr.  Watson  now  takes  up  the  arguments  a  priori  and 
a  posteriori,  on  page  281,  The  former,  he  says,  "is  an 
argument  from  something  antecedent  to  something  con- 
sequent ;  from  principle  to  corollary  /  from  cause  to  effectP 
Concerning  this  argument  he  says,  on  page  330  :  "  It  may 
be  ranked  among  the  overzealous  attempts  of  the  advo- 
cates of  truth.  It  is  w^ell  intended,  but  unsatisfactory,  and 
so  far  as  on  one  hand  it  has  led  to  a  neglect  of  the  more 
convincing  and  powerful  course  of  argument  drawn  from 
'•tlie  things  which  do  appear,''  and  on  the  other,  has  en- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


81 


couraged  a  dependence  upon  a  mode  of  investigation,  to 
which  the  human  mind  is  inadequate,  which  in  many  in- 
stances is  an  utter  mental  delusion,  and  which  scarcely  two 
mindg  will  conduct  in  the  same  manner;  it  has  probably 
been  mischievous  in  its  effects  by  iuducing'a  scepticism  not 
arising  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  from  the  imper- 
fect and  uusatisflictoi-y  investigations  of  the  human  under- 
standing, pushed  beyond  the  limit  of  its  power.  In  most 
instances  it  is  a  sword  which  cuts  two  ways  ;  and  the  mere 
imaginary  assumptions  of  those  who  think  they  have  found 
out  a  new  way  to  demonstrate  truth,  have  in  many  in- 
stances either  done  disservice  to  it  by  absurdity,  or  yielded 
principles  which  unbelievers  have  connected  with  the  most 
injurious  conclusions.  We  need  only  instance  the  doctrine 
of  the  necessary  existence  of  the  Deity  when  reasoned  d 
priori.''''  From  this  doctrine,  '•'•when  reasoned  a priori^^''  ho 
says,  "  some  acute  iniidels  have  drawn  the  conclusion  that 
the  Supreme  Being  cannot  be  a  free  agent,  and  have  thus 
set  the  first  principles  of  religion  at  variance  with  the  Scrip- 
tures." 

With  Mr.  Watson''s  definition  and  views  of  the  h  p^'iori 
argument,  as  here  given,  Mr.  Cocker  has  no  patience.  His 
want  of  honesty,  it  would  seem,  and  his  want  of  intelli- 
gence, are  alike  annoying  to  Mr,  C.  Hence  on  page  190, 
he  expresses  himself  thus :  "  It  would  appear  from  Mr. 
Watson's  treatment  of  this  argument  that  he  did  not  fully 
apprehend  it.  He  characterizes  it  as  an  argument  from  cause 
to  effect,  whereas  it  is  an  argument  from  a  priori  truths." 
In  addition  to  the  above  objections  to  the  a  priori  argu- 
ment, Mr.  Watson  says,  on  page  331 :  "  But  if  there  is  in 
reality  nothing  prior  to  the  being  of  God,  considered  as 
the  first  cause  and  causality,  nothing  in  nature,  nothing  in 
reason,  then  the  attempt  to  argue  from  it  is  fruitless  ;  and 
4* 


82  watson's  theological  institutes 


we  improperly  pretend  to  search  into  the  grounds  or  rea- 
sons of  the  first  cause,  of  -R-hom  antecedently  we  neither  do 
nor  can  know  anything."  To  all  this  Mr.  C.  replies  thus : 
"  What  a  misapprebeusion  of  the  argument !  Surely  Mr. 
Watson  must  have  known  that  the  question  is  not,  Is  there 
anything  prior  to  God  ?  hut.  Are  there  any  d  priori  truths 
of  reason  ?  To  instance  one  such  truth  :  '  every  event  must 
have  a  cause ; '  here  is  an  a  priori  truth,  a  necessary  belief 
of  the  human  mtelligence."  Yes,  sir,  Mr.  Watson  did  know 
very  well  that  the  question  is  not,  "  Is  there  anything  he- 
fore  God  ?  "  Hence  he  assumes  that  as  a  truth  acknow- 
ledged on  all  hands,  and  from  that  acknowledged  trutk  ho 
both  honestly  and  iidelligently  deduces  one  of  his  objec- 
tions to  tlie  a  priori  argument ;  therefore  the  only  question 
here,  is,  whether  the  deduction  is  legitimate  and  conclusive, 
and  that  we  leave  the  reader  to  decide,  at  least  for  the  pres- 
ent. Mr.  Watson  also  knew  that  the  question  which  he 
was  discussing  was  not,  "  Are  there  any  d priori  truths  of 
reason  ? "  He  was  discussing,  as  the  above  quotations 
show,  the  merits  of  the  d  priori  argument ;  nor  do  we  see 
any  reason  to  conclude  with  Mr.  C,  from  anything  Mr.  W. 
has  said  in  reference  to  the  d  priori  argument,  "  that  he 
did  not  fully  apprehend  it ; "  on  the  contrary,  we  are 
forced  to  turn  the  tables  again,  and  say  it  is  Mr.  C, 
and  not  Mr.  W.,  that  foils  to  apprehend  the  argument. 
We  adopt  Mr.  W.'s  definition  of  the  d  i^'iori  argument, 
though  Mr.  C.  assumes,  as  usual,  that  the  definition  which 
he  gives  ns  is  agreed  upon,  and  adopted  by  all.  We  be- 
Heve  with  Sir  W.  Hamilton,  and  Watson  knew,  and  Mr.  C. 
should  have  known,  that,  "  Previously  to  Kant  the  terms 
a  priori  and  d  jjosteriori  were,  in  a  sense  which  descended 
from  Aristotle,  properly  and  usually  emjjloyed — the  former 
to  denote  a  reasoning  from  cause  to  elfect — the  latter  a 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


83 


reasoning  from  effect  to  cause.  The  term  d  priori  came, 
however,  in  modern  times,  to  be  extended  to  any  abstract 
reasoning  from  a  given  notion  to  the  conditions  which  sucli 
a  notion  involved ;  hence,  for  exarajile,  the  title  d  priori 
bestowed  on  the  ontological  and  cosmological  arguments 
for  the  existence  of  the  Deity.  The  latter  of  these,  in  fict, 
starts  from  experience — from  the  observed  contingency  of 
the  world,  in  order  to  construct  the  supposed  notion  on 
which  it  founds.  Clarke's  cosmological  demonstration  called 
d  p>riori,  is,  therefore,  so  far,  properly  an  argument  «  pos- 
teriori.'''' 

What  Mr.  "Watson  says  on  page  331,  is  precisely  the 
same  in  substance  as  the  above  from  Sir  W.  Hamilton. 
Regarding  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  d  priori  argument,  he  says  the 
doctor  was  "  one  of  the  earliest  and  ablest  advocates  of 
this  mode  of  demonstrating  the  existence  of  God."  But, 
he  adds,  "  He  first  proceeds  a  posteriori  to  prove,  from  the 
actual  existence  of  dependent  beings,  the  existence  from 
eternity  of  '  one  mjchangeable  and  independent  Being  ! '  " 
And  just  so  it  is  that  Mr.  Cocker  reasons,  after  all  that  he 
says  about  the  conclusiveness  and  importance  of  the  d, 
priori  argument,  which  he  says  is  deduced  from  "  d  priori 
truths ; "  of  which  he  gives  the  following  as  a  specimen : 
"  Every  event  must  have  a  cause."  Now  in  this  d  priori 
truth,  as  he  calls  it,  there  is  clearly  nothing  from  Avhich  to 
deduce  an  argument,  but  the  event  or  effect  therein  speci- 
fied ;  and  in  attempting  to  prove  the  being  of  a  CTod  from 
that  event  or  eff'ect,  he  is  clearly  ai-guing  from  effect  to 
cause ;  his  argument,  therefore,  is  clearly  an  d  2)ostcriori 
argument!  The  fact  is,  in  proving  the  bt'ing  of  a  God 
there  cannot  be  such  a  thing  as  an  d  2>riori  argument,  prop- 
erly so  called ;  for  wherever  you  start  you  must  start 
■with  the  creature  or  the  Creator ;  if  with  the  latter,  you 


84  watson's  theological  institutes 

assume  what  is  to  be  proved,  and  then  attempt  to  prove 
your  assmnption  from  your  assumption  I  If  with  the 
former,  you  are  evidently  arguing  from  effect  to  cause,  and 
your  argument,  consequently,  is  an  d  posteriori  argument. 
The  reader  can  now  -judge  who  it  is  that  has  failed  to 
apprehend  the  d2)riori  argument,  Watson  or  his  revicM'er  ! 
And  as  to  his  d  p)riori  truth,"  we  sirai^ly  remind  him,  as 
Watson  has  already  done,  that  although  it  is  an  obvious 
truth,  axiomatic  if  you  please,  it  is  not  so  to  infidels,  at 
least  not  so  to  all  infidels,  for  Hume  denies  that  it  can  be 
proved  to  be  a  truth  ;  so  that  although  tee  admit  it  to  be 
an  evident  truth,  still  it  failed  to  afford  to  Ilume  an  argu- 
ment demonstrative  of  the  being  ol  a  God.  It  follows,  that 
the  failure  to  apprehend  the  d  priori  argument  is  wholly 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  C,  for  if  we  should  even  grant  that  his 
mode  of  constructing  the  d  2^riori  argument  is  the  right 
mode,  still  it  fails  to  answer  the  end  for  Avhich  he  emjiloys 
it,  and  this  is  the  fact  previously  asserted  by  Mr.  Wat- 
son. 

Mr.  Watson  now  takes  up  the  d  2'>osteriori  argument. 
On  page  275  he  says:  "Nature,  as  one  justly  observes, 
proceeds  from  causes  to  effects  ;  but  the  most  certain  and 
successful  investigations  of  man,  proceed  from  effects  to 
causes,  and  this  is  the  character  of  what  logicians  have 
called  the  argument  d  posteriori.''''  From  page  281  we 
have  this  argument  as  conducted  by  LockC,  Howe,  and 
Paley.  The  last  two  named  are  quoted  at  great  length, 
and  concerning  the  whole  he  thus  speaks :  "  The  above 
arguments,  as  they  irresistibly  confirm  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine of  the  existence  of  an  inteUigent  first  cause,  expose 
the  extreme  folly  and  absurdity  of  Atheism."  Of  this 
argument,  as  conducted  by  these  masters,  lie  not  only 
speaks  in  the  highest  terms,  but  says  of  the  d  posteriori 


Am>  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


85 


argument  itself,  when  properly  conducted,  that  it  is  "  both 
copious  and  irresistible,"  page  274.  And  again,  on  page 
335,  he  says:  "The  jjroof  of  the  bemg  of  a  God  reposes 
wholly  then  upon  arguments  d  posteriori,  and  it  needs  no 
other ;  though  we  shall  see  as  we  proceed  that  even  these 
arguments,  strong  and  irrefutable  as  they  are  when  rightly 
apphed,  have  been  used  to  prove  more  as  to  some  of  the 
attributes  of  God,  than  can  satisfactorily  be  drawn  from 
ihem.  Even  with  this  safe  and  convincing  process  of  rea- 
soning at  our  command,  we  shall  find  at  every  step  of 
inquiry  into  the  Divine  nature,  our  entire  dependence  upon 
Divine  revelation,  for  our  primary  light.  That  must  both 
originate  our  investigations,  and  conduct  them  to  a  satis- 
factory result."  On  page  281,  vol.  i,  Mr.  "Watson  says: 
"  The  existence  of  God,  once  communicated  to  ns  by  his 
own  revelation,  direct  or  traditional,  is  capable  of  ample 
proof,  and  receives  an  irresistible  corroborative  evidence 
d  posteriori.''''  Again,  on  page  274,  he  says:  "It  is  there- 
fore to  be  concluded,  that  we  owe  the  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  God,  and  of  his  attributes,  to  revelation  aloq,e, 
but,  being  now  discovered,  the  rational  evidence  of  both  is 
copious  and  irresistible."  Now,  not  only  in  defiance,  but 
in  direct  contradiction  of  all  this,  Watson's  reviewer  says, 
on  page  188  :  "  Some  of  Mr.  Watson's  admirers  have  con- 
cluded his  doctrine  to  be,  that  when  once  the  idea  of  God 
has  been  suggested  by  revelation  the  human  reason  can 

elaborate  the  demonstration  of  his  existence  A 

more  exact  and  critical  attention  to  the  entire  scope  and 
structure  of  his  argument  must,  however,  result  in  the  con- 
viction that  this  is  a  misapprehension."  Again,  on  page 
1 98,  lie  says  :  "  It  is  solely  because  Watson  degrades  the 
reason — the  faculty  which  apprehends  eternal,  necessary, 
universal  truth — and  undervalues  and  disregards  its  d 


86  Watson's  theological  msTiTUTES 

2mori  intuitions,  that  he  is  unable  to  apprehend  and  feel 
the  logical  conclusiveness  of  the  d  posteriori  demonstration 
of  a  God."  Poor  Watson !  He  "  degrades  the  reason, 
and  undervalues  and  disregards  its  d  ^?'tore  intiiitions,"  and 
"  he  is  unable  to  apprehend  and  feel  the  logical  conclusive- 
ness of  the  d  230Steriori  demonstration  of  a  God."  This  is 
about  as  conclusive  as  it  is  modest ;  and  the  following  on 
page  185  is  in  keeping  :  "  He  affirms,  with  earnestness  and 
emphasis,  that  we  have  no  idea  of  God,  of  right  and  wrong, 
and  of  immortality,  except  as  derived  from  without  by  m- 
struction  and  verbal  revelation  ;  that,  indeed,  we  have  no 
faculty  of  knowing  on  any  of  these  subjects,  except  by 
faith."  The  reviewer  docs  not  tell  ns  where  Mr.  Watson 
affirms  this,  only  he  assures  us  that,  "  A  careful  j^erusal  of 
the  chapters  '  On  the  Presumptive  Evidences  in  Part  I,  the 
chapter  On  the  Existence  of  God  in  Part  II,  and  the  first 
chapter  of  Part  III,  On  the  Moral  Law,'  will  be  decisive 
of  this  question  in  every  intelligent  mind ! "  If  the  re- 
viewer considers  this  decisive  he  is  welcome  to  do  so ;  we 
api^rehend,  however,  that  most  people  wiU  wonder,  as  Ave 
do,  why  Mr.  Watson  is  thus  misrepresented,  which  we  have 
shown  to  be  the  fact  in  our  review  of  the  chapters  referred 
to.  As  to  the  d  posteriori  argument,  as  given  by  Locke, 
Howe,  and  Paley,  so  far  from  disparaging  it,  Watson 
speaks  of  it  in  the  highest  terms,  as  we  have  shown,  and  we 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  argument,  as  thus  quoted 
and  endorsed  by  Watson,  is  the  fullest  and  clearest  exhibit 
of  it  that  has  yet  been  given,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  goes, 
and  for  anytliing  Mr.  C.  has  shown  to  the  contrary.  And 
we  do  verily  believe  that  Mr.  W.  has  given  it  credit  for  all 
the  merit  it  possesses  ;  nor  do  we  hesitate  to  say  that  Wat- 
son's reviewer  has  loft  it  unimproved. 

As  Mr.  Cocker  mentions  space,  on  page  203,  as  a  source 


AKD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


87 


fi"om  which  we  may  derive  a  knowledge  of  God,  we  will 
give  Mr.  Watson's  views  of  arguments  derived  from  this 
source  also ;  and  thus  close  our  examination  of  the  chapter 
"  On  the  Existence  of  God,"  to  which  we  were  referred  by 
the  reviewer.  His  remarks  on  this  to^iic  are  found  at  the 
close  of  the  chapter,  on  page  335,  and  run  thus  :  "  Equally 
unsatisfactorily,  and  therefore  quite  as  little  calculated  to 
serve  the  cause  of  truth,  is  the  argument  from  space; 
which  is  represented  by  Newton,  Clarke,  and  others,  as  an 
infinite  mode  of  an  infinite  substance,  and  that  substance 

God  Berkeley,  Law,  and  others  have  however 

shown  the  fallacy  of  considering  sjjace  either  as  a  substance, 
or  a  mode,  and  have  brought  these  speculations  under 
the  dominion  of  common  sense,  and  rescued  them  from 
metaphysical  delusion.  They  have  rightly  observed,  that 
space  is  a  mere  negation,  and  that  to  suppose  it  to  have 
existence,  because  it  has  some  properties,  for  instance,  of 
penetrability,  or  the  capacity  of  receiving  body,  is  the  same 
thing  as  to  affirm  that  darkness  must  be  something  because 
it  has  the  capacity  of  receiving  light,  and  siletice  something 
because  it  has  the  capacity  of  receiving  sound,  and  absence 
something  because  it  has  the  property  of  being  supplied  by 
presence.''''  After  exposing  these  and  similar  metaphysical 
sophisms,  at  some  length,  and  showing  that  nothing  may, 
in  this  way,  be  exalted  into  something,  he  closes  with 
these  remarks  :  "  The  whole  of  this  controversy  has  left  us 
only  to  lament  the  waste  of  labor  which  has  been  employed 
iri  erecting  around  the  impregnable  ramparts  of  the  great 
arguments  on  which  the  cause  rests  with  so  mvrch  safety, 
the  useless  incumbrances  of  mud  and  straw."  The  fact  is, 
any  one  who  is  acquainted  with  what  philosophers,  ancient 
and  modern,  have  said  of  space,  knows,  that,  to  nndei-take 
to  prove  from  it  the  being  of  a  God,  is  to  undertake  to 


88 


Watson's  tiieologicax,  institutes 


prove  the  unhnown  from  the  unknown  I  Or,  if  it  is  as- 
sumed that  God  is  ah-eady  known,  then  such  arguments 
profess  to  increase  our  knowledge  of  the  hnown  from  the 
unknown-!  To  show  how  little  we  know  about  space  we 
will  here  give  a  few  of  the  singular  definitions  of  it,  which 
great  men  have  left  on  record :  Space  is  vacuum  ;  it  is  the 
mere  form  of  the  sensibility  Space  and  time  are  in  them- 
selves non-existing ;  Space  is  nothing  but  the  order  of 
things  co-existing;  Space  is  not  pure  nothing^  for  it  has 
the  capacity  of  receiving  ;  Space  is  infinite  and  eternal; 
Space  and  time  are  really  something  ;  Space  is  but  a  rela- 
tive to  body,  a)id  to  body  only  ;  Sp>ace  is  an  affection  or 
property  of  the  Deity  ;  Space  is  an  infinite  quality  of  an 
infinite  substance  ! 

Now,  in  view  of  the  above  definitions,  we  really  cannot 
rej^resent  Watsoij  as  degrading  the  human  reason  because 
he  will  not  admit  the  utility  of  arguments  drawn  from  such 
a  source  to  prove  the  being  of  a  God.  On  the  contrary, 
we  really  think  with  him  that  they  are  at  best  "  useless 
incumbrances  of  mud  and  straw ! "  Thus  have  we  care- 
fully examined  and  jmssed  through  the  chapter  in  which 
Watson's  reviewer  professes  to  have  found  so  much  error, 
and  have  utterly  failed  to  find  the  error  specified.  On  the 
contrary,  we .  admire  and  love  its  weighty  and  truly  scrip- 
tural teachings  more  and  more. 

But  we  are  assured  that  we  shall  find  the  error  "  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Part  III,  '  On  the  Moral  Law. ' "  To  a 
"  discriminating  mind,"  it  is  affirmed  that  "  a  careful  pe- 
rusal "  of  this  chapter  "  will  be  decisive  of  this  question." 
That  it  will  be  "  decisive  of  the  question  "  is  quite  certain, 
for  that  is  the  last  chapter  appealed  to  ;  hence,  if  we  do 
not  find  the  error  there,  as  we  are  sure  we  will  not,  we 
have  nowhere  else  to  go  to  find  it,  and  must,  therefore, 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


89 


conclude  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  "Watson's  Insti- 
tutes." 

"We  are  glad  that  we  have  been  referred  to  this  chap- 
ter, for  several  reasons  ;  one  is,  it  so  hajipens  that  the  part 
more  especially  objected  to  is  that  which  we  more  especially 
admire,  because  it  contains,  we  believe,  one  of  the  happiest 
and  most  successful  efforts  to  expose  one  of  the  most  i)er- 
nicious  and  subtle  errors.  For  this  reason,  and  also  that 
we  may  do  both  Watson  and  his  reviewer  justice,  we  must 
be  allowed  to  quote  that  part  of  the  chapter  to  which  the 
reviewer  so  strongly  objects,  and  in  reference  to  which  we 
differ  so  veiy  widely.  We  sincerely  regret,  however,  that 
we  have  still  to  complain  of  misrepresentation,  and  such 
misrepresentation  as  we  cannot  even  attempt  to  accoimt  for. 


90 


watson's  theological  institutes 


CHAPTER  III. 

On  page  186  of  the  review,  Mr.  C.  brings  the  following 
sweci^ing  charge  against  o\ir  author : 

"  It  is,  therefore,  but  natural  that  he  [Mi-.  Watson] 
should  enter  his  solemn  protest  against  the  attempt  to  con- 
struct a  science  of  Natue^\x  Theology  or  of  Mokal  Phi- 
losophy, as  a  design  which  is  not  only  'visionary'  and  'im- 
possible,' but  of  '  mischievous  tendency,'  and  they  who  are 
engaged  m  it  are  accessory  to  the  infidel  crusade  against 
the  word  of  God." 

Here  Mr.  Watson  is  represented  as  "  entering  his  sol- 
emn protest  against  the  attempt  to  construct  a  science  of 
Natural  Tlieology  or  of  Moral  Philosoj^hy."  Nay  more, 
ho  is  represented  as  asserting  that  the  thing  is  "visionary, 
impossible,  and  of  mischievous  tendency."  And  in  his 
introduction,  on  the  first  page,  the  reviewer  conveys  the 
idea  that  Mr.  Watson  and  other  theologians  condemn 
philosoi)hy  altogether.  "  Many  theologians,"  he  says, 
"  have  condemned  philosophy,  shutting  it,  as  they  supposed, 
out  of  the  region  of  theology,  and  cautioning  their  hearers 
to  '  beware  that  no  ma"n  beguile  them  through  philosophy.' " 
Doubtless  it  was,  on  reading  these  statements  in  the  Quar- 
terly, that  the  good  doctor  of  the  Repository  was  moved  to 
fly  with  so  much  haste  and  zeal  to  the  rescue  of  philosophy 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


91 


out  of  the  hands  of  these  mistaken  theologians  who  were 
about  to  sluit  it  out  of  the  region  of  theology,  and  abandon 
it  forever.  In  the  June  number  of  the  Repository,  in  con- 
nection with  his  notice  of  the  article  under  consideration, 
the  doctor  thus  speaks :  "  The  true  way  to  escape  being 
spoiled  through  philosophy  is  not  to  let  all  philosopliy 
alone,  but  to  ground  ourselves  upon  the  true.  Never  yet 
have  men  succeeded  in  erecting  a  wall  high  enough  to  se- 
cure a  total  separation  between  the  domains  of  philosojihy 
and  theology."  This  deep  concern  for  the  safety  of  phi- 
losophy brings  to  our  mind  what  Bishop  Morris  tells  about 
a  certain  city  official  who,  in  his  great  zeal  for  the  peace  of 
his  city,  on  a  certain  occasion  demanded  the  cause  of  the 
tumult,  when  an  honest  Dutchman  replied,  "It  is  only  one 
bird  that  did  get  out  of  him  cage."  But  in  the  present 
instance  there  is  not  even  that  much  cause  for  alarm,  for  all 
this  talk  about  Mr.  Watson's  deadly  opposition  to  philoso- 
phy is  simply  untrue !  If  the  editor  of  the  Repository 
had  examined  the  Institutes  as  well  as  the  Quarterly,  he 
would  have  seen  that  the  attempt  "  to  secure  a  total  sepa- 
ration between  the  domains  of  philosophy  and  theology  " 
is  one  of  those  evils  to  which  Mr.  Watson  objects,  and 
which  he  exposes  in  that  very  chapter  to  which  Mr.  Cocker 
refers  us  for  proof  of  the  above  charges.  To  prevent  such 
mistakes  in  the  future,  and  to  show  how  Mr,  Watson  has 
been  misrepresented,  we  will  now  hear  him  speak  for  him- 
self 

After  speaking  of  the  "  perfection  and  glory "  of  the 
moral  law,  as  given  in  the  Old,  and  more  fully  developed  in 
the  New  Testament,  he  says,  on  page  472  : 

"  It  has,  however,  fared  with  morals  as  with  doctrines, 
that  they  have  been  often  and  by  a  strange  perversity 
.studied  without  any  reference  to  the  authority  of  the 


92 


WATSOn's  TnEOLOGICAL  rNSTITTITES 


Scrij^tures.  As  ^ve  have  had  systems  of  NAijpEiVi,  ReOgion 
drawn  oxxt  of  the  materials  furnished  by  the  Scriptures,  and 
then  placed  to  the  sole  account  of  human  reason,  so  we 
have  also  various  systems  of  morals  drawn,  as  far  as  the 
authors  thought  fit,  from  the  same  source,  and  put  forth 
under  the  title  of  Moral  PniLOsoPHY,  implying  too  often, 
or  at  least  sanctioning,  the  inference  that  the  unassisted 
powers  of  man  are  equally  adequate  to  the  discovery  of 
doctrine  and  duty  [this,  as  Ave  have  seen,  is  the  teaching  of 
the  article  under  review]  ;  or,  at  least,  that  Christianity 
but  perfects  what  uninspired  men  are  able  not  only  to  com- 
mence, but  to  carry  onward  to  a  considerable  ai^proach  to 
perfection.  This  observation  may  be  made  as  to  both,  that 
whatever  is  foimd  correct  in  doctrine  and  pure  in  morals 
in  ancient  writers  or  systems,  may  be  traced  to  indirect 
revelation,  and  that,  so  far  as  mere  reason  has  applied  itself 
to  discovery  in  either,  it  has  generally  gone  astray.  The 
modern  systems  of  natural  religion  and  ethics  are  superior 
to  the  ancient,  not  because  the  reason  of  their  framers  is 
superior,  but  because  they  have  had  the  advantage  of  a 
light  from  Christianity,  Avhich  they  have  not  been  candid 
enough  generally  to  acknowledge.  For  those  who  have 
written  on  such  subjects  with  a  view  to  lower  the  value  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  remarks  in  the  first  part  of  this 
work  must  suffice  ;  but  of  that  class  of  moral  philosophers 
who  hold  the  authority  of  the  sacred  books,  and  yet  sedu- 
lously omit  all  reference  to  them,  it  may  be  inquired  what 
they  propose  by  disjoining  morals  from  Christianity,  and 
considering  them  as  a  separate  science  ?  Authority  they 
cannot  gain,  for  no  obligation  to  duty  can  be  so  high  as  the 
command  of  God  ;  nor  can  that  authority  be  ajiplied  in  so 
direct  a  manner  as  by  a  revelation  of  his  Avill ;  and,  as  for 
the  perfection  of  their  system,  since  they  discover  no  duties 


AST)  THE  BIBLE  DEFE^T)ED. 


93 


not  already  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  or  grounded  upon 
some  general  principles  they  contain,  they  can  find  no 
apology,  from  the  additions  they  make  to  our  moral 
knowledge,  to  put  Christianity,  on  all  such  subjects,  wholly 
out  of  sight." 

The  reader  is  requested  to  notice  the  connection  of  the 
words  "  mischievous  tendency  "  in  what  follows,  and  com- 
pai-e  with  the  quotation  which  we  have  given  above  from 
page  186  of  the  Review;  and  also  with  the  quotation  which 
"we  have  given  from  Dr.  Clarke  of  the  Repository,  and  then 
tell  us  what  ground  there  is  for  the  charges  of  the  one,  and 
the  fears  of  the  other ;  in  other  words,  say  whether  "Wat- 
son is  the  enemy  of  philosophy  that  he  is  represented  to  be, 
or  whether  he  is  its  true  and  intelligent  defender ;  say 
whether  he  is  for  separating  philosophy  and  theology,  as 
has  been  assumed,  or  whether,  with  Dr.  Clarke,  he  is  opposed 
to  the  separation,  and  a  defender  of  the  union  of  philosophy 
and  theology.  That  the  latter  is  the  fact,  "  must,  we  think, 
be  evident  to  every  discriminating  mind,"  after  reading  the 
quotations  here  given.  Thus  we  turn  the  tables  again,  by 
not  only  clearmg  "Watson  of  the  charge  of  separating  philos- 
ophy and  theology,  but  by  showing  that  it  is  his  opponents 
who  do  this  very  thing.  And,  as  Mr.  "Watson  complains, 
"  they  have  not  been  candid  enough  generally  to  acknow- 
ledge" the  source  from  which  they  obtained  the  moral 
teachings  which  they  thus  separate  from  theology;  for  al- 
though they  are  entirely  indebted  to  "  the  sacred  books  " 
for  all  that  is  valuable  in  their  moral  teachings,  they  "  sedu- 
lously omit  all  reference  to  them."  TVe  will  now  hear  our 
author  continue  his  defence. 

"  All  attempts  to  teach  morals,  independent  of  Chris- 
tianity, even  by  those  who  receive  it  as  a  Divine  revelation, 
must,  notwithstanding  the  great  names  which  have  sane- 


94-  .  watson's  theological  ln-stitutes 

tioned  the  practice,  be  cousiderecl  as  of  miscliievous  tend- 
ency, although  the  design  may  liave  been  laudable,  and  the 
labor,  in  some  subordinate  respects,  not  without  utility." 

His  reasons  for  objecting  to  "  all  attempts  to  teach 
morals"  in  the  ways  here  specified,  now  follow.  These 
reasons  are  so  weighty,  and  so  well  expressed,  we  must  be 
permitted  to  give  them  in  the  author's  own  words ;  for,  let 
it  be  distinctly  noticed — "Watson's  opponents  must  fairly 
meet  and  invalidate  these  reasons,  or  adopt  the  position  in 
support  of  which  they  are  advanced.  And  this  they  will 
find  to  be  very  different  work  from  making  and  fighting  a 
man  of  straw  ;  which  is  really  all  they  have  yet  done.  He 
objects  to  such  attempts,  then  : 

"  1.  Because  they  silently  convey  the  impression  that 
human  reason,  Avithout  assistance,  is  sufficient  to  discover 
the  full  duty  of  man  toward  God  and  toward  his  fellow 
creatures.  [That  the  teaching  of  the  article  under  review 
conveys  this  impression,  we  have  already  seen.  See  Review, 
pages  183,  184,  205,  and  206.] 

"  2.  Because  they  imjily  a  deficiency  in  the  moral  code 
of  our  religion,  which  does  not  exist ;  the  fact  being  that, 
although  these  systems  borrow  much  from  Christianity, 
they  do  not  take  in  the  whole  of  its  moral  principles,  and, 
therefore,  so  far  as  they  are  accepted  as  substitutes,  dis- 
place what  is  perfect  for  what  is  imperfect. 

"  3.  Because  they  turn  the  attention  from  what  is  fact, 
the  revealed  Lxvvv  of  God,  with  its  appropriate  sanctions, 
and  place  the  obligation  to  obedience  either  on  fitness, 
beauty,  general  interest,  or  the  natural  authority  of  truth, 
which  are  all  matters  of  opinion  ;  or,  if  they  ultimately  refer 
to  the  will  of  God,  yet  they  infer  that  wDl  through  various 
reasonings  and  speculations,  which  in  themselves  are  still 
matters  of  opinion,  and  as  to  which  men  will  feel  themselves 
to  be  in  some  degree  free. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


95 


"  4.  The  duties  they  enjoin  are  either  merely  outward 
in  the  act,  and  so  tliey  disconnect  them  from  internal  prin- 
cij^les  and  habits,  Avithout  which  they  are  not  acceptable  to 
God,  and  but  the  shadows  of  real  virtue,  however  benefi- 
cial they  may  be  to  men  ;  or  else  they  assume  that  human 
nature  is  able  to  engraft  tliose  princii^les  and  habits  upon 
itself,  and  to  practise  them  without  abatement  and  interrup- 
tion ;  anotion  which  is  contradicted  by  those  very  Scriptures 
they  hold  to  be  of  Divine  authority. 

"  5.  Their  separation  of  the  doctrines  of  religion  from 
its  morals,  leads  to  an  entirely  difierent  process  of  promot- 
ing morality  among  men  to  that  which  the  infinite  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  God  have  estabUshed  in  the  Gospel.  They 
lay  down  the  rule  of  conduct,  and  recommend  it  from  its 
excellence  x>g>'  se,  or  its  influence  upon  individuals  and  upon 
society,  or  perhaps  because  it  is  manifested  to  be  the  will 
of  the  Supreme  Being  indicated  from  the  constitution  of 
human  nature  and  the  relations  of  men.  But  Christianity 
rigidly  connects  its  doctrines  with  its  morals.  Its  doctrine 
of  man's  moral  Aveakness  is  made  use  of  to  lead  him  to  dis- 
■  trust  his  own  sufiiciency.  Its  doctrine  of  regeneration  by 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  implies  the  entire  destruc- 
tion of  the  love  of  evil,  and  the  direction  of  the  whole  af- 
fection of  the  soul  to  universal  virtue.  Its  doctrine  cf 
prayer  opens  to  man  a  fellowship  Avith  God,  invigorating  to' 
every  virtue.  Tlie  example  of  Christ,  the  imitation  of 
which  is  made  obligatory  upon  us,  is  in  itself  a  moral  system 
in  action,  and  in  principle ;  and  the  revelation  of  a  future 
judgment  brings  the  whole  weight  of  the  control  of  futuri? 
rcAvai'ds  and  punishments  to  bear  upon  the  motives  and 
actions  of  men,  and  is  the  source  of  the  fear  of  offending 
God,  which  is  the  constant  guard  of  virtue,  when  human 
motives  would  in  a  multitude  of  cases  avail  nothing. 


9G  Watson's  theological  ixstittjtes  ■ 

"  It  may  indeed  be  asked  whether  the  teaching  of  morals 
must  then  in  all  cases  be  kept  in  connection  ^\^th  religion  ? 
and  whether  the  pliilosophy  of  virtues  and  \ices,  with  the 
lower  motives  by  which  they  are  urged  upon  men,  may  not 
be  usefully  investigated  ?  We  answer,  that  if  the  end  pro- 
posed by  this  is  not  altogether  speculative,  but  something 
l^ractical ;  if  the  case  of  an  immoral  world  is  taken  up  by 
moralists  with  reference  to  its  cure,  or  even  to  its  emenda- 
tion in  any  elfectual  degree,  the  whole  is  then  resolved  into 
this  simple  question — whether  a  weaker  instrument  shall 
be  preferred  to  that  which  is  powerful  and  effective  ?  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  the  great  end  of  Christianity,  so  far  as  its 
influence  upon  society  goes,  is  to  morahze  mankind  ;  but  its 
infinitely  wise  Author  has  established  and  authorized  but 
OXE  process  for  the  correction  of  the  practical  evils  of  the 
world,  and  that  is  the  teaching  and  enforcement  of  tue 
WHOLE  TEUTn  as  it  stands  m  his  own  revelations  ;  and  to 
this  only  has  he  promised  his  special  blessing.  A  distinct 
class  of  ethical  teachers  imitating  heathen  philosophers  in 
the  princii^les  and  modes  of  moral  tuition,  is,  in  a  Christian 
country,  a  violent  anomaly ;  and  imjilies  an  absurd  return 
to  the  twilight  of  knowledge  after  the  sun  itself  has  arisen 
upon  the  world. 

"  Within  proper  guards,  and  in  strict  connection  with 
the  whole  Christian  systen*  [so  far  is  Mr.  W.  from  building 
a  high  wall  between  theology  and  i:)hilosophy],  what  is 
called  moral  philosophy  is  not,  however,  to  be  imdervalued ; 
and  from  many  of  the  writers  above  alluded  to  much  useful 
instruction  may  be  collected,  which,  though  of  but  little 
efficacy  in  itself,  may  be  invigorated  by  uniting  if  with  the 
vital  and  energetic  doctrines  of  religion,  and  may  thus  be- 
come directive  to  the  conduct  of  the  serious  Christian. 
Understanding  then  by  moral  philosophy,  not  that  pride  of 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED, 


97 


science  which  borrows  the  discoveries  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  then  exhibits  itself  as  their  rival,  or  affects  to  supply 
their  deficiencies  ;  but  as  a  modest  scrutiny  into  the  reasons 
on  which  the  moral  jjreccpts  of  revelation  may  be  grounded, 
and  a  wise  and  honest  application  of  its  moral  principles  to 
particular  cases,  it  is  a  branch  of  science  which  may  be  use- 
fully cultivated  in  connection  with  Christianity." 

The  above  is  all  that  this  chapter  contains  that  is  strictly 
relevant  to  the  points  at  issue,  unless  it  be  the  closing  para- 
grajA,  in  Avhich  our  author  suras  up  thus  : 

"  To  the  revealed  will  of  God  we  may  now  turn  for  in- 
formation on  the  interesting  subject  of  morals,  and  we  shall 
find  that  the  ethics  of  Christianity  have  a  glory  and  a  i>ev- 
fection  which  philosophy  has  never  heightened,  and  which 
its  only  true  ofiice  is  to  display,  and  keep  before  the  atten- 
tion of  mankind." 

"We  have  now  before  us  a  verbatim  exhibit  of  all  that 
this  chapter  contains  strictly  relevant  to  the  subject  in 
hand.  And  any  one  who  will  be  at  the  trouble  of  reading 
these  quotations  will  see  that  "Watson  speaks  highly  of 
"  what  is  called  moral  philosophy,"  and  which  he  defines 
to  be  "  a  modest  scrutiny  into  the  reasons  on  which  the 
moral  precepts  of  revelation  may  be  grounded."  "This," 
he  says,  "  is  a  branch  of  science  which  may  be  usefully  cul- 
tivated in  connection  with  Christianity,  and  may  thus  be- 
come directive  to  the  conduct  of  the  serious  Christian." 
"From  many  of  the  writers  above  alluded  to  much  useful 
information  may  be  collected."  Therefore,  "  what  is  called 
moral  philosophy  is  not  to  be  undervalued."  To  this  end, 
however,  it  must  be  kept  "  in  strict  connection  with  the 
whole  Christian  system ; "  therefore,  to  "  all  attempts  to 
teach  morals  independent  of  Christianity,"  he  decidedly 
objects,  and  his  I'casons  are  given  above.    As  we  only  aim 


98  watson's  theological  institutes 

at  a  defence  of  Watson  and  the  truth,  we  leave  it  to  others 
to  divine  why  it  is,  in  face  of  the  above,  that  Watson  is 
represented  as  being  the  unqualified  enemy  of  philosophy, 
and  as  attempting  to  separate  and  build  a  wall  between 
philosophy  and  theology!  That  precisely  the  reverse  is 
true,  in  each  particular,  is  as  evident  as  the  strength  of  the 
Enghsli  language  can  make  it !  Why  his  true  position,  and 
his  weighty  and  masterly  arguments  in  support  thereof, 
should  be  left  utterly  unnoticed,  we  also  leave  to  others  to 
divine.  We  must  say,  however,  that  to  us  this  is  truly 
marvellous,  and  its  marveUousuess  is  increased  by  the  fact 
that  this  is  done  by  ministers  of  high  standing  in  the  M.  E. 
Church  ;  not  because  we  expect  them  to  be  wiser  or  better 
than  other  ministers ;  but  because  w.e  expect  them  to  be 
better  acquainted  with  the  Theological  Institutes  of  Rich- 
ard Watson,  and  should  unite  with  him  in  saying  "  that 
the  ethics  of  Christianity  have  a  glory  and  perfection  which 
philosophy  has  never  heightened,  and  which  its  only  true 
office  is  to  display,  and  to  keep  before  the  attention  of  man- 
kind." 

Mr.  Watson  raises  no  objection  to  philosophers  or  phi- 
losophy projjerly  so  called  ;  but  to  "  that  pride  of  science 
which  borrows  the  discoveries  of  the  Scriptures,  and  then 
exhibits  itself  as  their  rival,  or  affects  to  supply  their  deficien- 
cies." Mr.  Watson  takes  the  ground,  as  every  sound  theo- 
logian must  do,  that  the  doctrines  and  morals  of  Christian- 
ity are  both  perfect  and  inseparcible  ;  and,  accordingly,  ob- 
jects, as  God  himself  does,  to  all  attempts  to  add  to,  take 
from,  or  separate  thera.  He  objects  to  the  dishonest  and 
pernicious  practice  of  stealing  Scripture  truth,  and  giving 
reason  credit  for  the  discovery  tliereof.  With  such  philos- 
ophers and  philosophy  Mr.  Watson  has  no  sympathy,  be- 
cause he  is  a  sound  philosopher,  and  a  lover  of  sound  philos- 


AND  TIIE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


99 


ophy,  as  his  writings  do  most  clearly  show.  And  we  are 
fully  convinced  that  we  would  have  better  theologians  and 
better  jAilosophers  if  Watson's  writings  were  more  care- 
fully and  more  generally  studied ;  and,  as  a  consequence, 
we  would  have  less  of  "  that  pride  of  science  "  above  speci- 
fied, and  which  sound  theologians  and  philosophers  hate 
as  the  very  bane  of  both  philosophy  and  theology,  ami 
which  abounds  in  the  present  age  as  much  as  in  any  pre- 
vious age — perhaps  I  should  say  more,  for  it  always  grows 
out  of,  and  accomi^anies  the  superficial. 

We  have  long  been  convinced  that  the  error  of  separat- 
ing the  morals  of  Christicmity  from  their  doctrines^  and 
divesting  them  of  their  proper  authority  and  motives\  is 
very  common,  and  very  pernicious,  and  that  it  demands 
from  theologians  far  more  attention  than  it  receives.  It 
originated  with  those  who  were  very  far  from  being  the 
friends  of  either  the  Church  or  the  word  of  God;  but,  as- 
suming the  garb  and  name  of  j^hilosoiihy,  it  obtained 
countenance  and  support  from  many  who  were  the  friends 
of  both ;  and  to  the  latter  it  is  indebted  for  most  of  the 
success  which  it  has  had  in  the  Christian  world.  We  be- 
lieve the  sacred  cause  of  Temperance  has  suffered  more 
from  this  error  than  from  any  other  thing — perhaps  we 
might  say,  more  than  from  all  other  things  put  together. 
This  branch  of  Christian  morals  has  of  late  been  separated 
more  or  less  from  the  Christian  doctrines  whence  it  nat- 
urally springs ;  it  has  been  divested  of  the  motives  and  au- 
thority with  which  Christianity  invested  it ;  and  it  has  been 
taken -out  of  the  hands  of  the  Church,  or  people  of  God, 
and  put  into  the  hands  of  those  who,  in  many  instances, 
made  no  pretensions  to  the  Christian  character,  and  were 
very  far  from  being  friendly  to  the  Church  and  cause  of 
God.    In  such  hands,  and  divested  of  all  that  which  gave 


100 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


it  force  and  vitality,  the  cause  of  Temperance  has  languish- 
ed and  died,  or  been  made  a  mere  tool  to  promote  other 
and  even  pernicious  ends  ! 

We  have  now  examined  all  those  parts  of  the  Institutes 
to  which  we  have  been  referred,  and  have  discovercd  that 
the  charges  brought  against  Mr.  Watson  are  without 
ti)undation.  Instead  of  error,  we  have  found  the  sublime 
doctrines  of  Christianity  developed  and  enforced  with  the 
abilities  of  a  master ;  and  much  of  the  teachings  said  to  be 
erroneous,  we  have  not  only  shown  to  be  entirely  Scrip- 
tural, but  such  as  is  specially  needed  at  the  present  time : 
we  have  also  shown  that  Mr.  Watson  is  strangely  misquoted 
and  misrepresented.  In  a  word,  we  "  have  found  no  fault 
in  this  man,  touching  those  things  whereof  ye  accuse  him." 

But  Mr.  Watson's  logic  is  quite  as  objectionable,  it 
would  seem,  as  his  metaphysics.  On  pages  191,  192,  193, 
and  194,  the  reviewer  records  some  of  his  objections  to 
Mr.  Watson's  reasoning,  and  gives  us  some  specimens  of 
his  own,  which  shall  now  have  a  brief  notice. 

"The  question  whether  the^  Scriptures  are  a  revelation 
from  God  is  referred  solely  to  the  arbitration  of  a  faculty 
Avhich  is  pronounced  to  be  '  weak,  uncertain,  and  erring,' 
'  which  may  be  the  reverse  of  the  Divine  reason,'  and  in 
whose  demonstrations  of  the  existence  of  God  I  am  not 
permitted  to  repose  any  confidence.  Now  if  reason  is  to- 
tally unreliable  in  this  case,  it  must  be  in  that ;  if  it  mislead 
me  in  the  one  instance,  I  cannot  trust  it  in  the  other ;  if  it 
is  wholly  incompetent  to  produce  certitude  when  the  ex- 
istence of  God  is  under  consideration,  it  must  also  when  the 
truth  of  the  Bible  is  under  consideration."  (Pages  191  and 
192.)  This  is  a  small  specimen  of  much  more  that  possesses 
as  little,  and  even  less  merit,  but  with  which  we  will  not 
trouble  the  reader,  as  this  contains  the  point  at  issue,  and 
will,  consequently,  answer  our  purpose. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


101 


That  reason,  human  reason,  without  the  supernatural 
assistance  of  Avhicli  we  have  already  spoken  at  some 
length,  is  "  a  weak,  uncertain,  and  erring  faculty,"  espe- 
cially in  reference  to  those  subjects  specified  by  Mr.  Wat- 
son, is  certainly  assei  tcd  by  the  latter,  and  we  join  with 
him  in  the  assertion  ;  for  to  join  issue  with  ,  him  here,  is  to 
take  the  ground  tlLUt  unassiated  reason  is  strong^  unerring, 
and  certain,  in  its  investigatvms  and  decisions  on  the 
aforesaid  subjects ;  a  ground  which  we  did  not  suppose 
any  man  in  his  senses  would  take,  and  which  we  know  is 
utterly  untenable,  being  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  luii- 
versal  experience. 

We  jom  issue  the  reviewer,  however,  when  he  as-' 
sorts,  "if  it  [reason]  is  wholly  incompetent  to  produce  cer- 
titude when  the  existence  of  God  is  under  consideration,  it 
must  also  when  the  truth  of  the  Bible  is  under  considera- 
tion." By  "the  truth  of  the  Bible"  we  suppose  the  re- 
viewer means  its  being  what  it  professes  to  be,  the  word  of 
God.  That  reason  is  comj^etent  to  produce  certitude  as  to 
this,  but  entirely  incompetent  to  originate  the  idea  of  the 
God  of  the  Bible,  is  Watson's  position  ;  that  it  is  incomjje- 
tent  to  the  former,  if  it  be  incom])etent  to  the  latter,  is  the 
reviewer's  assertion :  but  as  he  simply  asserts,  we  simply 
deny  till  he  attempts  the  proof;  in  the  mean  time  we  Avill 
give  Watson's  position  in  his  own  words. 

The  chapter  in  which  this  subject  is  discussed  com- 
mences on  page  95,  vol.  i,  and  is  entitled,  "  The  use  and 
limitation  of  reason."  After  several  remarks,  which  it  is 
not  necessary  to  quote,  our  author  proceeds  thus,  on  page 
95  : 

"  We  are  not,  in  the  first  instance,  to  examine  the  doc- 
trine, in  order  to  determine  from  our  own  opinion  of  its 
excellence,  whether  it  be  of  God  (for  to  this,  if  we  need  a 


102 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


revelation,  wo  are  incompetent),  but  we  ai'e  to  inquire  into 
the  credentials  of  the  messengers,  in  quest  of  sufficient 
proof  that  God  hath  si)okcn  to  mankind  by  them.  Should 
a  slight  consideration  ot  the  doctrine,  either  by  its  apparent 
excellence,  or  the  contrary,  attract  us  strongly  to  this  ex- 
amination, it  is  well;  but  Avhatever prejudices,  for  or  against 
the  doctrine,  a  report,  or  a  hasty  opinion  of  its  nature  and 
tendency  may  inspire,  our  final  judgment  can  only  safely 
rest  upon  the  proof  which  may  be  afibrded  of  its  Divine 
authority.  If  that  be  satisfactory  the  case  is  determined, 
whether  the  doctrine  be  pleasing  or  displeasing  to  us.  If 
sufficient  evidence  be  not  affiDrded,  we  are  at  liberty  to 
receive  or  reject  the  whole,  or  any  part  of  it,  as  it  may  ap- 
pear to  us  to  be  worthy  of  our  regard ;  for  it  then  stands 
on  the  same  ground  as  any  other  merely  human  opinion." 

On  pages  102,  103,  our  author  speaks  of  the  use  and 
limitation  of  reason  thus :  "  The  use  of  reason,  therefore, 
in  matters  of  revelation,  is  to  investigate  the  evidences  on 
which  it  is  founded,  and  fairly  and  impartially  to  interpret 
it  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation  in  other 
cases.  Its  limit  is  the  authority  of  God.  When  he  has 
explicitly  laid  down  a  doctrine,  that  doctrine  is  to  be  hum- 
bly received,  whatever  degree  of  rational  evidence  may  be 
aiforded  of  its  truth,  or  withheld  ;  and  no  torturing  or  per- 
verting criticisms  can  be  innocently  resorted  to,  to  bring  a 
doctrine  into  a  better  accordance  with  our  favorite  views 
and  systems,  any  more  than  to  make  a  precept  bend  to  the 
love  and  practice  of  our  vicious  indulgences.  A  larger 
scope  than  this  cannot  certainly  be  assigned  to  human 
reason  in  matters  of  revelation  when  it  is  elevated  to  the 
office  oi  judge — a  judge  of  the  evidences  on  which  a  pro- 
fessed revelation  rests,  and  a  judge  of  its  meaning  after  the 
application  of  the  established  rules  of  interj)retation  in  other 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


103 


cases.  But  if  reason  be  considered  as  a  learner,  it  may 
luive  a  much  wider  range  in  those  fields  of  intelligence 
■which  a  genuine  revelation  from  God  wiU  open  to  our  view. 

 Tlius  it  is  that  reason,  instead  of  being  fettered, 

as  some  pretend,  by  being  regulated,  is  enlightened  by 
revelation,  and  enabled  from  the  first  principles  and  by  the 
grand  landmarks  which  it  furnishes,  to  pursue  its  inquiries 
into  many  subjects  to  an  extent  which  enriches  and  en- 
nobles the  hiunau  intellect,  and  administers  continual  food 
to  the  strength  of  religious  principle.  This,  however,  is 
not  the  case  with  all  subjects.  Many,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  are  from  their  very  nature  wholly  incapable  of  inves- 
tigation. At  the  first  step  we  launch  into  dai%ness,  and 
find  in  religion  as  well  as  in  natural  philosophy,  beyond  cer- 
tain limits,  insurmountable  barriers,  which  bid  defiance  to 
humait  penetration." 

Thus  it  is  that  Mr.  Watson  specifies  the  ttse  and  lishta- 
TiON  of  reason  ;  specifies  what  it  can,  and  what  it  can  not 
do  ;  what  is  its  legitimate  work,  and  what  is  not ;  wherein  it 
is  weak,  erring,  and  uncertain,  and  wherein  it  is  a  sure  guide ; 
wherein  it  is  reliable,  and  wherein  it  is  not.  "  Its  limit  is  the 
authority  of  God  ; "  its  use  "  in  matters  of  revelation,"  is  not 
to  decide  ichat  a  revelation  should  he,  "for  to  this,  if  we  need 
a  revelation,  we  are  incompetent ; "  bnt  "  to  investigate 
the  evidences  on  which  it  is  founded,  and  fiiirly  and  impar- 
tially to  interpret  it  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of 
interpretation  in  other  cases."  But  the  reviewer  says,  "  if 
reason  is  wholly  incompetent  to  produce  certitude  wlien 
the  existence  of  God  is  under  consideration,"  it  is  equally 
incompetent  to  do  this ;  if  it  cannot  decide  what  a  revela- 
tion from  God  should  be,  it  cannot  examine  the  seals  there- 
of In  a  word,  if  it  cannot  do  the  greater  it  cannot  do  the 
.less !    We  now  leave  the  reader  to  decide  whether  Wat- 


104  watson's  theological  institutes 


son's  logic  or  that  of  his  reviewer  is  most  at  fault !  We 
also  leave  it  to  the  impartial  reader  to  say  whether  Watson 
has  degraded  the  human  reason  by  specifymg  its  limit  and 
USE  as  above.  Thus  we  again  turn  the  tables,  by  showing 
that  it  is  the  reviewer's  logic  that  is  at  fault,  not  Mr.  Wat- 
son's !  The  appropriate  Avork  of  reason,  in  this  connection, 
is  thus  stated  by  Leslie  in  his  "  Short  and  Easy  Method 
with  a  Deist : "  "I  suppose,  then,  that  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  doctrines  will  be  sufficiently  evinced  if  the  mat- 
ters of  fact  recorded  of  Christ  in  the  gospels  are  proved  to 
be  true ;  for  his  miracles,  if  true,  established  the  truth  of 
what  he  delivered.  The  same  may  be  said  with  regard  to 
Moses.  If  tie  led  the  children  of  Israel  through  the  Red  Sea, 
and  did  such  other  wonderful  things  as  are  recorded  of  him 
in  the  book  of  Exodus,  it  must  necessarily  follow  that  he  was 
sent  by  God  ;  these  being  the  strongest  evidences -we  can 
require,  and  which  every  Deist  will  confess  he  would  admit 
if  he  himself  had  witnessed  their  performance.  So  that  the 
stress  of  this  cause  will  depend  upon  the  proof  of  these 
matters  of  fact."  The  work  here  assigned  to  reason  is 
simply  to  ascertain  whether  the  things  here  specified  are 
matters  of  fact,  and  this  being  done,  "  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  doctrines,"  says  Mr.  Leslie,  "  will  be  sufficiently 
evinced."  It  is  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  to  conceive  of 
any  two  works  more  diffisrent  than  the  above,  and  that  of 
originating  the  idea  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence;  yet  Mv. 
Cocker  says,  if  reason  cannot  do  the  latter  it  cannot  do 
the  former !  Mr.  Leslie,  however,  like  Mr.  Watson,  shows 
that  reason  is  quite  corajietent  to  the  one  task,  though 
utterly  incomijetent  to  the  other ;  and  he  also  shows  that 
to  establish  tlie  above  facts,  with  which  God  seals  his  own 
truth,  is  to  establish  "  the  truth  of  the  Christian  doctrines," 
and  the  first  of  these  is  the  being  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence ! 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


105 


On  page  193  tbc  reviewer  further  objects  to  Mr.  "Wat- 
son's logic,  thus  :  "  In  order,  therefore,  to'  prove  the  truth 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  he  has  first  to  assume  xnhat  he  can- 
not 2>rove,  namely,  the  existence  of  God,  and  then  having, 
as  he  supposes,  proved  the  truth  of  revelation,  he  proves 
from  revelation  the  existence  of  God.  In  other  words,  he 
says :  Grant  me  that  God  exists,  and  I  will  prove  the  Bible 
to  be  true,  and  then  from  the  Bible  I  will  prove  the  being 
of  a  God.  If  this  be  not  an  examjjle  of  the  j)etitio  2^^^^- 
cijni — a  mere  begging  of  the  question — then  we  do  not 
understand  his  argument.  He  is  all  the  while  arguing  in  a 
vicious  circle." 

That  the  reviewer  does  not  understand  Mr.  Watson's 
argument  is  sufficiently  obvious,  and  to  admit  this  is  the 
very  best  apology  we  can  make  for  him,  for  he  has  never 
once  given  Watson's  argument  to  his  readers,  though  he 
has  often  professed  to  do  so.  In  the  quotations  given 
above  he  says  Watson  "  has  first  to  assume  what  he  cannot 
prove,  namely,  the  existence  of  God."  And  he  rejiresents 
him  as  saying,  "  Grant  me  that  God  exists,  and  I  will  prove 
the  Bible  to  be  true."  l^o,  sir ;  Watson  says  no  such  thing, 
nor  anything  like  it ;  neither  does  he  assume  what  cannot 
be  proved.  He  says :  "  It  is,  therefore,  to  be  concluded 
that  Tve  owe  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God,  and 
of  his  attributes,  to  revelation  alone  ;  but,  being  now  dis- 
covered, the  rational  evidence  of  both  is  copious  and  irre- 
sistible ;  so  much  so  that  Atheism  has  never  been  able  to 
make  much  jn-ogress  among  mankind  where  this  revelation 
has  been  preserved."  And,  as  corroboi-ative  of  this  senti- 
ment, he  quotes  the  following  words  of  EUis  :  "  Tell  men 
there  is  a  God,  and  their  mind  embraces  it  as  a  necessary 
truth  ;  imfold  his  attributes,  and  they  will  see  the  expla- 
nation of  them  in  his  works."    The  amount  is  this :  the 

5» 


106  watson's  theological  instittites 


knowledge  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence  cannot  be  derived 
from  what  is  created,  however  extensive,  for  that  would  be 

to  DERIVE  THE  InFIN'ITE  EEOII  THE  FINITE  ;  but  God  him- 

sell  having  communicated  to  man  a  knowledge  of  his  own 
being  and  attributes,  that  knowledge  is  corroborated  and 
illustrated  by  all  the  works  of  God.  In  a  word,  Revelation 
ORIGINATES  and  Creation  illustrates  the  great  idea.  In- 
stead, then,  of  assuming  "  what  cannot  be  proved,"  Watson 
simply  assumes  a  nalced  fact,  namely,  that  the  idea  of  an 
Infinite  Intelligence  is  already  in  man^s  j^ossession  /  and  he 
asserts  that  "  Moses  and  aU  the  inspired  writers  "  assume 
the  same  fact,  and  assume  it  because  it  was  a  fact  admitted, 
believed,  and  knoion.  That  some  "  did  not  like  to  retain 
God  in  their  knowledge,"  and,  consequently,  "  had  not  the 
knowledge  of  God,"  is  not  only  not  denied,  but  asserted, 
both  by  Watson  and  the  inspired  writers ;  but  this  does 
not  alfect  the  fact  here  claimed;  it  only  goes  to  estabUsh 
that  other  point  claimed  by  Watson,  viz.,  that  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  is  not  intuitive,  icniversal,  and  inevitable.  But 
whUe  Watson,  like  the  inspired  writers,  assumes  the  fact 
here  specified,  he  does  not  assume,  but  attempts  to  prove, 
that  the  idea  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence  was  not  originated 
by  man,  but  communicated  to  him  directly  from  God  him- 
self ;  and  we  believe  he  is  quite  successful  in  his  attempt. 
Here,  then,  is  no  "  begging  of  the  question,"  no  "  arguing 
in  a  vicious  circle."  Watson,  we  repeat,  simply  recognizes 
the  undisputed  fact,  viz.,  that  in  his  time,  as  well  as  in  the 
time  of  Moses  and  Adam,  the  idea  of  an  Infinite  Intelli- 
gence was  in  man's  possession,  whether  he  beUeved  it  or 
not ;  and  by  a  masterly  and,  we  think,  conclusive  argument, 
he  professes  to  have  shown  tliat  man  had  this  knowledge 
originally  and  directly  from  God  himself  The  difference 
between  Watson  and  his  opponents  on  this  last  point  is 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


107 


simply  this :  Watson  takes  the  ground,  with  Paul,  that 
"  fiiith  coraeth  by  hearing  the  word  of  God ; "  while  his 
opjionents  take  the  ground  that  faith  cometh  by  seeing  the 
tcorks  of  God.  We  have  already  seen  that  man  could  not 
in  this  way  originate  a  knowledge  of  the  being  and  attri- 
butes of  the  God  of  the  Bible  ;  and  we  now  say  that  this  is 
equally  true  of  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
It  is  quite  evident,  for  instance,  that  we  cannot  by  contem- 
plating tlie  works  of  creation  originate  a  knowledge  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity,  nor  that  of  the  atonement ;  there  is 
nothing  in  the  earth,  the  sun,  the  moon,  or  the  stars,  by 
seeing  which  we  can  learn  how  "  God  can  be  just  and  the 
justifier  of  the  ungodly."  The  same  is  true  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Spirit's  agency  in  man's  salvation,  of  tlie  res- 
urrection of  the  human  body,  of  a  general  judgment,  and 
of  prayer  offered  to  God  in  the  name  of  another.  No  part 
of  this  faith,  we  affirm,  cometh  hy  seeing  the  works  of  God ; 
it  all  comes  by  nEARmo  the  Word  of  God,  either  commu- 
nicated directly  by  God  himself,  or  by  a  messenger  who 
shall  give  satisfactory  evidence  that  God  hath  sent  him ; 
and  to  investigate  this  evidence  is  the  legitimate  work  of 
reason.  It  is  thus  that  Mr.  Watson  has  proved  the  truth 
of  revelation  ■;  and,  in  connection  with  his  own,  he  gives  the 
famous  argument  of  Mr.  Leslie,  already  referred  to.  To 
examine  the  seals  of  revelation,  and  thus  prove  it  to  be 
from  God,  man  is  quite  competent  if  he  will  avail  himself 
of  the  help  within  his  reach  ;  but  to  originate  a  knowledge 
of  thQ  doctrines  specified  above,  he  is  entirely  incompe- 
tent ;  for  this  knowledge  he  is  indebted  to  a  direct  revela- 
tion from  God. 

But  the  reviewer  takes  the  ground  that  the  Bible  is 
simply  of  no  use,  that  it  admits  of  no  proof,  and  has  no 
authority,  unless  you  cim  first,  and  independent  of  it,  prove 


108  watson's  theological  institutes 


the  being  and  attributes  of  God.  I  say  the  being  and 
attributes  of  God,  for  the  question  is  not  whether  there  be 
something  eternal  (that  is  not  disputed),  but  •whether  there 
be  an  Eternal  Intelligence,  clothed  with  infinite  attributes ; 
if  this  cannot  be  proved,  independent  of  the  Bible,  then  the 
Bible  itself  is  insusceptible  of  proof,  and  is,  consequently, 
of  no  more  authority  than  the  Koran  or  the  Zendavesta. 

As  this  is  a  point  upon  which  the  reviewer  lays  much 
stress,  and  upon  which  he  grounds,  if  I  mistake  not,  his 
weightiest  objections  to  Watson's  views,  we  will  quote  his 
own  words  to  an  extent  that  will  prevent  the  possibility  of 
mistake.  "  'How  am  I  to  certify  myself  of  the  being  of  a 
God  ?  '  That  he  does  exist  must  be  determined  before  I 
can  consider  the  evidence  of  a  revelation  professing  to  bo 
from  him."  (P.  187.)  "Finding  that  the  d  prion  and  a 
2)OSteriori  argument  are  both  alike  insufficient  to  furnish 
a  complete  and  independent  demonstration  of  the  being  of 
a  God,  and  that  human  reason  is  unable,  without  a  revela- 
tion from  God  in  human  language,  to  certify  itself  that  God 
exists,  he  '  concludes  that  we  owe  the  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  God  to  revelation  alone.' "  ....  "If  we 
owe  our  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God  to  revelation 
alone,  then  it  is  imjwssible  to  prove,  logically,  the  existence 
of  God."  Mark  the  words,  "  a  complete  ancf  indejjendent 
demonstration  of  the  being  of  a  God."  That  reason  can 
do  this  is  what  ]Mr.  C.  affirms,  and  that  if  this  cannot  bo 
done  independent  of  revelation,  "  then  it  is  impossible  to 
prove,  logically,  the  existence  of  a  God."  As  the  words 
"  in  human  language,"  in  the  above  quotation,  are  calculated 
to  lead  astray,  and  as  Mr.  C.  seems  to  assume  tliat  the 
word  revelation,  as  used  by  Mr.  Watson,  means  something 
written  in  a  book,  we  will  just  here  give  Mr.  Watson's  own 
definition  of  a  revelation,  which  he  adopts  from  Dr.  Dodd- 
ridge. 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


109 


"  A  Divine  revelation  iias  been  well  defined  to  be  '  a 
discovery  of  some  proposition  to  the  mind,  which  came  not 
in  by  the  usual  exercise  of  its  faculties,  but  by  some 
miraculous  Divine  interposition  and  attestation,  either 
mediate  or  immediate.'  "  It  will  be  seen  that  this  is  very 
different  from  what  Mr.  Cocker  gives  as  Mr,  Watson's  idea 
of  a  revelation.  It  will  be  necessary  to  keep  in  view  this 
definition  of  a  revelation,  as  it  shows  the  sense  in  which 
Mr.  W.  uses  the  word. 

TVe  will  now  proceed  with  our  quotations  from  the 
review  for  the  purpose  of  showing  Mr.  Cocker's  position. 
"  If  we  owe  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God  to 
revelation  alone,  then  we  cannot,  by  human  reason,  prove 

that  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God."  "  We 

must  either  2)ostula(e  or  2)>'oi'e  the  existence  of  God  before 
we  can  attempt  the  first  argument  to  prove  the  truth  of 
the  Bible."  (P.  192.)  We  might  give  much  more  of  the 
same  kind,  but  the  quotations  here  given  are  quite  sufii- 
cient.  Till  you  demonstrate  the  being  of  a  God  independr 
ent  of  a  Divine  revelation^  your  best  attempt  to  prove  that 
"  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God,"  is  "  a  mere  begging 
of  the  question,"  it  is  "  arguing  in  a  vicious  circle." 

Dr.  Dempster  takes  the  same  ground,  as  may  be  seen  in 
his  series  of  articles  which  are  now  being  published  in  the 
"  North-Western  Christian  Advocate."  The  following  quo- 
tation from  article  No.  3,  in  the  issue  of  the  24th  December, 
1SG2,  will  sufiiee  to  show  the  doctor's  position;  indeed,  the 
whole  series  is  evidently  designed  to  perfect  what  is  lacking 
in  Mr.  Cocker's  effort  to  i>!ace  the  ;irgument  beyond  the 
possibility  of  successful  contradiction.  His  first  article,  in 
particular,  is,  to  a  considerable  extent,  a  mere  rehearsal  of 
Mr.  Cocker's  words,  so  that  we  need  not  give  more  than  a 
single  quotation  in  this  connection.    "The  conclusion  is, 


110  watson's  theological  institutes 


then,  Itrgically  forced  upon  us,  if  there  be  no  prior  proof  of 
God's  existence  out  of  the  Bible,  there  can  be  no  proof  that 
the  Bible  is  of  God."  *'  So  that  we  must  do  the  Avork  inde- 
pendent of  the  Bible,  and  then,  after  the  work  is  done,  the 
Bible  may  come  aloi]^'  and  offer  its  superfluous  and  un- 
called-for service  ! 

Now  with  all  deference  to  all  doctors,  and  all  others, 
we  take  the  ground  that  the  Bible  is  complete,  not  only  in 
its  teaching,  but  also  in  evidence.  So  that  the  issue  is 
fairly  joined  in  this  particular  also  !  And  notwithstanding 
the  evident  confidence  with  which  Watson's  opponents  rest 
in  the  supposed  security  of  their  position,  as  stated  above, 
we  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  we  can  expose  its  utter 
weakness  in  five  minutes  !  Now,  why  may  I  not  prove  that 
the  inspired  writers  lived,  as  is  recorded  of  them,  and  that 
they  said  and  did  certain  things  ;  without  first  proving 
the  being  of  a  God  from  the  facts  of  creation,  and  the 
intuitions  of  pure  reason  ?    I  say,  why  may  I  not  do  the 

*  The  following  quotations  from  Fowler  the  phrenologist  are,  we  think, 
quite  iu  harmony  with  the  above  : 

"Modern  Christianity  makes  too  much  of  her  Bible,  by  ascribing  to  it 
more  than  it  claims,  or  was  ever  designed  to  accomplish.  Christianity,  or 
the  doctriues  of  the  Bible,  are  only  the  supplemejit  of  religion,  while 
natural  theology,  or  the  existence  of  God,  or  the  fundamental  principles 
of  religion  to  be  presented  in  the  essay,  are  the  foundation.  The  human 
mind  requires  somewhat  more  of  proof  than  it  finds  in  the  Bible.  The 
Bible  gives  us  its  ijisi'  dixit  simply  ;  but  the  human  mind  requires  evidence 
— retjuires  to  understand  the  vJii/  and  the  wherefore,  and  the  philosophy 
of  that  which  it  receives.  That  philosophy  the  Bible  does  not  give — does 
not  even  prclcml  to  give.  It  re(iuires  belief  on  the  ground  of  a  '  thus 
saith  the  Loid,'  and  there  leaves  it." 

According  to  Fowler,  tlie  Bible  contains  mere  ip«e  </i>27  ;  according  to 
Dempster,  "  words  uttered  by  we  know  not  who."  We,  however,  take  the 
ground  that  the  Bible  is  complete  in  itself,  both  in  teaching  and  evidence. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


Ill 


former,  without  first  doing  the  latter  ?  Why,  sirs,  you 
may  as  well  tell  me  that  I  cannot  jDrove  that  Aristotle, 
Socrates,  Plato,  and  Cicero  lived,  as  is  recorded  of  them, 
and  that  they  said  and  did  certain  things,  without  first 
proving  the  being  of  a  God  from  the  facts  of  creation  !  I 
say  you  might  as  well  tell  me  the  latter,  as  tell  me  the 
former.  Nay,  you  might  as  well  tell  me  that  I  cannot 
prove  a  case  of  murder,  without  first  proving  the  being  of 
a  God,  as  tell  me  that  I  cannot  prove  that  Elijah  and  Jesus 
Ciirist  restored  life,  till  I  first  prove  the  being  of  a  God  ! 
Why  may  I  not  prove  that  life  was  restored,  just  as  well  as 
that  it  was  taken  away  ?  And  all  this  without  first  proving 
the  being  of  a  God.  I  maintain  that  the  simple  facts,  that 
the  sacred  writers  lived,  as  is  recorded  of  them,  and  that 
they  wrought  certain  miracles,  and  delivered  certain  proph- 
ecies, are  as  susceptible  of  proof  as  any  other  facts  ;  and 
that  there  is  no  conceivable  necessity  for  my  first  proving 
the  being  of  a  God,  before  proving  such  facts.  And  I  take 
the  ground,  that  when  these  facts  are  proved,  i.  e.,  that  the 
sacred  writers  lived  and  acted  as  is  recorded  of  them,  the 
claims  of  the  Bible  are  established  beyond  the  possibility  of 
successful  contradiction :  for  the  miracles  and  prophecies 
thus  proved  to  be  facts,  are  God's  seals  afiixed  to  what 
they  "  wrote  and  sj^oke,"  and  affixed  for  the  declared  pur- 
pose of  p^'ovinc]  that  they  "wrote  and  spoke  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  We  cannot  so  much  as  con- 
ceive of  any  possible  way  of  evading  this  conclusion,  save 
that  adopted  by  the  Sadducees,  for  on  all  hands  the 
miracles  were  admitted  to  be  above  the  power  of  man, 
and,  therefore,  must  be  ascribed  to  God  or  the  devil ;  and 
as  the  Sadducees  would  not  do  the  former,  they  were 
forced  to  do  the  latter,  and  Jesus  Christ  pronounced  their 
malignant  utterances  blasphemy,  and  declared  it  to  be 
•'•inardonablo  I 


112  watson's  theological  institutes 


Although  the  points  here  claimed  are  exceeding  plain, 
yet  believing,  as  we  do,  that  it  will  give  increased  vividness 
and  force  to  our  argument,  we  wiU  give  a  quotation  or  two 
from  the  good  old  Book  which  we  claim  to  be  complete  in 
itself,  not  only  as  to  teaching,  but  also  as  to  evidexce. 

The  following  passages  are,  we  think,  to  the  pouit : 
"  And  Moses  answered,  and  said,  But,  behold,  they  will  not 
believe  me,  nor  hearken  unto  my  voice :  for  they  will  say, 
The  Lord  hath  not  appeared  unto  thee.  And  the  Lord 
said  unto  him.  What  is  that  in  thine  hand  ?  And  he  said, 
A  rod.  And  he  said.  Cast  it  on  the  ground.  And  he  cast 
it  on  the  ground,  and  it  became  a  serpent ;  and  Moses  fled 
from  before  it.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Put  forth 
thine  hand,  and  take  it  by  the  tail.  And  he  put  forth  his 
hand  and  caught  it,  and  it  became  a  rod  in  his  hand:  that 
they  may  believe  that  the  Lord  God  of  their  flathers,  the 
God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob, 
hath  appeared  unto  thee.  And  the  Lord  said  furthermore 
unto  him.  Put  now  thine  hand  into  thy  bosom.  And  he  put 
his  hand  into  his  bosom  :  and  when  he  took  it  out,  behold, 
his  hand  was  leprous  as  snow.  And  he  said,  Put  thine 
hand  into  thy  bosom  again.  And  he  jDut  his  hand  into  his 
bosom  again,  and  plucked  it  out  of  his  bosom ;  and,  behold, 
it  was  turned  again  as  his  other  flesh.  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass,  if  they  wiU  not  believe  thee,  neither  hearken  to  the 
voice  of  the  first  sign,  that  they  M'ill  believe  the  voice  of 
the  latter  sign.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  if  they  will  not 
believe  also  these  two  signs,  neither  hearken  unto  thy 
voice,  that  thou  shalt  take  of  the  water  of  the  river,  and 
pour  it  upon  the  dry  land  :  and  the  water  which  thou 
takest  out  of  the  river  shall  become  blood  upon  the  dry 
land.  And  Moses  said  unto  the  Lord,  O  my  Lord,  I  am 
not  eloquent,  neither  heretofore,  nor  since  thou  hast  spoken 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


113 


unto  thy  servant :  but  I  am  slow  of  speech,  and  of  a  slow- 
tongue.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Who  hath  made 
man's  mouth  ?  or  who  maketh  the  dumb,  or  deaf,  or  the 
seeing,  or  the  blind  ?  have  not  I,  the  Lord  ?  Now  there- 
fore go,  and  I  will  be  with  thy  mouth,  and  teach  thee  what 
thou  shalt  say."  "  And  thou  sbalt  take  this  rod  in  thine 
hand,  wherewith  thou  shalt  do  signs."  "  Thus  shalt  thou 
say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  AM  hath  sent  me  unto 
thee.  "  And  Moses  and  Aaron  went,  and  gathered  to- 
gether all  the  elders  of  the  children  of  Israel.  And  Aaron 
spake  aU  the  words  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  Moses, 
and  did  the  signs  in  the  sight  of  the  people.  And  the 
people  believed  :  and  when  they  heard  that  the  Lord  had 
visited  the  children  of  Israel,  and  that  he  had  looked  upon 
their  affliction,  then  they  bowed  their  heads  and  worship- 
ped." These  quotations  are  taken  from  the  third  aud 
fourth  chapters  of  the  book  of  Exodus.  We  will  simply 
call  attention  to  the  following  particulars:  First,  Moses 
saw,  "  And,  behold,  the  bush  burned  with  fire,  and  the  bush 
was  not  consumed."  He  also  witnessed  the  other  phe- 
nomena, some  of  which  we  have  given  in  the  above  quota- 
tions. Moreover,  he  heard  tlie  voice  of  the  Lord  God,  and 
he  felt  his  power  in  his  body,  and  in  his  soul,  and  all  to 
this  end,  that  he  might  know  that  the  message  which  he 
carried,  and  the  "  authority  under  which  he  acted,  were 
from  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob.  And  the  God  who  did  all  these  things,  for  the 
ends  here  specified,  also  said  to  Moses,  "  Certainly  I  will 
be  with  thee  ;  and  this  shall  be  a  token  unto  thee,  that  I 
have  sent  thee  ;  when  thou  hast  brought  forth  the  people 
out  of  Egypt,  ye  shall  serve  God  upon  this  mountain." 
And,  finally,  the  Lord  God  said  unto  him,  "  Thou  shalt 
take  this  rod  in  thine  hand,  wherewith  thou  shalt  do  signs," 


114  Watson's  theological  institijtes 


Such  are  the  moans  which  God  employed,  and  such  the  end 
for  which  he  employed  them.  And  the  end  was  answered, 
for  Moses  never  doubted  for  one  moment  that  it  was  the 
Lord  God  of  his  fathers  that  sent  him  ;  and  being  invested 
with  power  to  worlc>  miracles,  to  convince  others  that  I  AM 
had  sent  him,  he  went  forth. 

Meantime,  "  The  Lord  said  to  Aaron,  Go  into  the  wil- 
derness to  meet  Moses.  And  he  went,  and  met  him  in  the 
mount  of  God,  and  kissed  him.  And  Moses  told  Aaron  all 
the  words  of  the  Lord  who  had  sent  him,  and  all  the  signs 
which  he  had  commanded  him."  Thus  Aaron  had  all  the 
evidence  necessary  to  satisfy  his  mind  on  the  same  points. 
And  being  thus  satisfied,  and  qualified,  they,  "  Moses  and 
Aaron,  went  and  gathered  together  all  the  elders  of  the 
children  of  Israel.  And  Aaron  spake  all  the  words  which 
the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  Moses,  and  did  the  signs  in  the 
sight  of  the  people.  And  the  people  believed :  and  when 
they  heard  that  the  Lokd  had  visited  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  that  he  had  looked  upon  their  affliction,  then  they 
bowed  their  heads  and  worshipped."  Here,  again,  the 
means  employed  arc  quite  successful ;  the  people  are  as 
satisfied  as  are  Moses  and  Aaron,  that  the  message  and  the 
autliority  are  from  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers.  And  no 
marvel,  for  the  facts  were  as  indisputable  as  their  very 
existence,  and  the  facts  established  the  claims.  Thus,  as 
might  be  expected,  Infinite  Wisdom  employs  the  best  moans 
to  the  best  end,  and,  of  course,  where  such  means  fail, 
nothing  can  possibly  succeed.  "  If  they  believe  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though 
one  rose  from  the  dead."  It  will  be  seen,  of  course,  that 
the  parties  more  immediately  interested  in  the  miracles 
here  specified,  were  such  as  already  had  the  idea,  and  to 
some  extent,  the  knowledge,  of  the  true  God,  and  the 


AilD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


115 


miracles  were  designed  to  convince  them  that  it  was  this 
God,  the  God  of  their  fathers,  that  spake  to  and  by  Moses. 
The  knowledge  that  the  God  of  Abraham  was  an  Infinite 
Spirit,  clothed  with  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  omni- 
presence, was  not  communicated  by  the  miracles  ;  miracles 
could  ne  t  do  this,  any  more  than  the  heavenly  bodies ;  but 
miracles  could,  and  did,  convince  them  that  Moses  had  his 
commission  from  this  true  God,  the  God  of  their  fathers,  a 
knowledge  of  whose  being  and  attributes  they  were  already 
in  possession  of  Hence  the  Egyptians,  though  they  saw 
the  miracles,  had  no  such  lofty  conceptions  of  the  God  that 
wrought  them :  on  the  contrary,  while  they  had  no  doubt 
that  it  was  by  the  power  of  Israel's  God  that  the  miracles 
were  wrought,  they  still  supposed  that  their  own  gods  were 
equal,  if  not  superior,  to  the  God  of  Israel ;  it  was  to  have 
this  matter  fairly  tested  that  Pharaoh  called  for  the  magi- 
cians, that  they  might  work  by  the  power  of  the  gods  of 
Egypt,  while  Moses  wrought  by  the  power  of  the  God  of 
Israel.  But  let  us  suppose  that  the  Egyptians  are  as  fully 
instructed,  by  revelation,  as  the  Israelites  are,  as  to  the 
character  of  the  true  God,  and  let  miracles  be  wrought  to 
convince  them  that  Moses  comes  to  them  with  instructions 
from  that  God,  then  the  miracles  will  be  calculated  to  jiro- 
duce  the  same  efiect  upon  their  minds  that  they  did  upon 
the  minds  of  the  Israelites,  I  say  by  revelation  ;  for  it  was 
by  revelation  that  Moses  and  the  Israelites  had  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  here  specified.  Moses  never  pretended  that 
bis  sublime  conceptions  of  God  were  inferred  from  the 
miracles  which  he  had  witnessed,  any  more  than  that  they 
were  inferred  from  the  heavenly  bodies ;  nor  does  the 
sacred  text  intimate  for  a  moment  that  this  is  the  end  for 
which  they  were  wrought,  as  we  have  already  seen.  Moses 
derived  his  sublime  conceptions  of  God,  partly  from  his 


116  Watson's  theological  insxitotes 


pious  and  divinely  instructed  ancestors,  and  partly  by  di- 
rect revelation  from  God  himself. 

Of  course  wo  are  not  now  speaking  of  a  written  revela- 
tion, for  although  man  was  never  without  a  revelation  from 
God,  as  yet  he  had  no  written  revelation  ;  nor  does  it  ap- 
pear that  the  knowledge  of  letters  was  even  known  till  God 
with  his  own  "  finger  "  wrote  the  ten  commandments  upon 
two  tables  of  stone.  "  God  wrote  now,"  says  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  "  on  tables  of  stone  what  he  had  originally  written 
on  the  heart  of  man,  and  in  mercy  he  placed  that  before 
his  eyes  which  by  sin  had  been  obliterated  from  his  soul ; 
and  by  this  he  shows  us  what,  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  must 
be  rewritten  in  the  mind."  By  the  way.  Dr.  Dempster,  in 
his  article  of  the  ITth  December,  speaks  of  "the  heathen 
which  were  without  revelation."  I  suppose  he  means 
without  a  loritten  revelation ;  though  if  he  does,  his  conse- 
quences will  not  follow ;  and  if  he  means  absolutely  without 
any  revelation  save  that  which  is  given  in  the  works  of 
creation,  we  object  to  the  premise  from  which  he  draws  his 
conclusions ;  for  we  do  not  believe  that  man  was  ever  left 
absolutely  witliout  a  revelation,  understanding  the  term  as 
Watson  and  Doddridge  define  it ;  for  not  only  did  God  speak 
to  Adam  and  others,  and  "  to  the  fathers  by  the  projihets," 
but  we  are  assured  that  Jesus  Christ  is  "  the  true  Light, 
which  hghteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world." 

We  now  turn  to  the  written  revelation,  and  will  endea- 
vor to  show  that  the  Bible  imparts  to  us  both  the  idea 
and  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  that  it  contains  in  itself 
satisfactory  evidence  of  the  truthfulness  of  that  idea  and 
that  knowledge  of  God  which  it  imparts. 

I  make  a  distinction  between  these  three  particulars, 
namely,  the  idea  of  the  being  of  a  God,  the  knoioledge  of 
his  character,  and  the  evidence^  ox  proof  ,  of  both. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


117 


Tlie  idea,  the  knowledge,  and  the  evidence  are  thus  ob- 
tained. I  take  up  the  Bible,  and  the  first  sentence  in  that 
book  strikes  my  eye,  and  reads  thus :  "  God  in  the  beghining 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  Here  I  have  two 
ideas.  The  first  is,  that  there  is  a  being  whose  name  is 
Elohim,  or  God ;  and  the  second  is,  that  this  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  eartli.  Now  as  soon  as  I  read  this 
sentence,  I  have  these  two  ideas;  I  say  I  have  them, 
whether  I  believe  them  or  not ;  or  whether  I  like  them,  or 
dislike  them ;  the  fact  is  the  same,  I  have  them ;  and  it  is 
absolutely  out  of  my  power  to  make  it  otherwise.  Now 
let  it  be  supposed  that  I  was,  up  to  this  time,  like  one  of 
those  philosophers  whom  Watson  mentions,  and  whom  we 
shall  notice  in  due  time,  who  never  had  the  idea  of  creation, 
or  of  a  creating  God;  and  lived  and  died  Avithout  the  idea, 
because  they  had  not  the  Bible,  or  a  revelation  of  these 
two  ideas  contained  in  this  first  sentence  of  the  Bible  :  I 
say  suppose  this,  and  it  ^will  follow,  not  only  that  I  have 
these  two  ideas  as  soon  as  I  read  this  sentence,  but  that  I 
am  indebted  to  the  Bible  for  them.  Or  if  my  opponents 
should  deny  that  there  ever  was  such  a  man,  still  it  must 
be  admitted  that  if  there  was,  it  would  be  possible  for  him 
to  obtain  these  two  ideas  in  this  wag  ;  and  this  is  all  that 
my  argument  requires,  namely,  that  I  have,  or  may  have 
these  ideas  from  the  Bible  alone,  independent  of  any  pre- 
vious help  from  any  other  source,  as  to  these  two  ideas. 

Well,  now  I  have  these  ideas;  and  they  are  of  such  an 
extraordinary  character  that  my  mind  acts  as  it  never  did 
before.  I  look  up  to  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  I  say,  "  Cer- 
tainly, this  is  an  extraordinary  conception,  that  there  was  a 
time  when  these  were  created,  before  which  they  had  no 
being,  not  even  as  to  their  substance !  And  what  a  Being 
that  must  be  who  createdi  them  all,  yea  'the  heavens  and 


118 


Watson's  theological  institutes 


the  earth !  "'  I  am  now  induced  to  read  on,  and  am  sm- 
prised  beyond  measure  as  I  read  the  sublime  utterances, 
which  are  only  exceeded  by  the  still  more  sublime  concep- 
tions contained  in  the  short  history  of  the  creation  and 
formation  "of  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  "Let  there  be 
light,  and  there  was  light !  "  "  Certainly,"  I  exclaim  again, 
"tliese  are  concei:)tions  utterly  unknoAvn,  even  in  the  schools 
of  our  philosophers ;  and  whether  they  are  true  or  not,  they 
arc  at  least  interesting,  and  arc  worthy  of  the  most  care- 
ful consideration."  I  proceed  with  increased  interest,  and 
mark  with  pleasing  wonder  tlie  sublimity  and  simplicity 
which  alike  characterize  this  brief  but  altogether  wonderful 
history.  My  wonder,  together  with  the  most  pleasing 
emotions,  are  still  increased  as  I  read,  "And  God  said.  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the 
fruit  tree  yielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  it- 
self, upon  the  earth :  and  it  was  so."  Again,  I  pause,  with 
stiU  increased  wonder  and  delight,  as  I  read,  "  And  God 
made  two  great  lights ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day, 
and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night :  he  made  the  stars 
also.  And  God  set  them  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven  to 
give  light  upon  the  earth."  I  jDroceed  with  this  wonderful 
narrative  till,  lo !  my  wonder  and  delight  are  increased  be- 
yond utterance  as  I  read,  "  And  God  said,  Let  ixs  make 
man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness :  and  let  them  have 
dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the 
air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth,  and  over 
every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth.  So 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
crerfted  he  him ;  male  and  female  created  he  them.  And 
God  blessed  them,  and  God  said  unto  them,  Be  fruitful, 
and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it ;  and 
have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl 


« 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


119 


of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon 
the  earth."  Finally,  the  narrative  closes  in  these  words,  as 
my  wonder  and  delight  reach  their  climax  :  And  God  saw 
every  thing  that  he  made :  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good." 
"  Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were  finished,  and  all  the 
host  of  them."  '  And  all  in  six  days !  And,  what  is  also 
wonderful,  the  whole  history  would  only  cover  about  one 
page  of  a  pamphlet !  Could  any  man  who  never  saw  the  Bi- 
ble, write  such  a  history  as  this?  Have  any  of  the  schools 
of  learning,  whether  ancient  or  modern,  produced  anything 
like  this  ?  Could  any  man  by  his  natural  powers  originate 
these  conceptions,  and  write  this  history?  Our  answer, 
our  unhesitating  answer,  to  these  questions  is.  No. 

But,  having  these  ideas,  I  become  increasingly  anxious 
to  know  more  about  this  God  who  "  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  and  all  the  host  of  them,"  and  who  upholds 
and  moves  all  and  every  part  thereof ;  and,  what  is  stUl 
more  interesting,  is  the  Father  of  my  Spii-it.  I  say  I  am 
increasingly  anxious  to  know  more  about  this  God ;  yea,  I 
already  begin  to  feel  that  "  this  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee 
the  only  true  God."  Hence,  to  this  end,  I  continue  to  read 
the  wonderful  book  to  which  I  am  indebted  for  the  won- 
derful conceptions  by  which  I  am  thus  moved  and  charm- 
ed. And  as  I  read,  the  character  of  this  great  First  Cause 
is  developed  more  and  more.  He  is  Eternal  ;  he  is  bemg 
itself.  "I  AM  THAT  I  AIM."  "  I'rom  everlasting  to 
everlasting.''''  "I  am  God."  He  is  jSj)irit,  not  body ; 
mind,  not  matter.  He  is  "  the  Father  of  spirits.''''  "  llie 
God  of  the  sjnrits  of  all  flesh:^  "We  are  not  allowed  to 
conceive  of  him  as  having  any  form.  He  is  a  lyure  Spirit 
unconnected  loith  body.  Hence  he  is  declared  to  be  "  the 
invisible  God,  %ohom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see."  "  TJie 
King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible.''''    '•^  Memsmber  ye  saw 


120  Watson's  theological  institutes 

no  similitude:''  "  God  is  a  SjnriV  The  idea  of  a  plurality 
of  gods  has  no  place  in  this  book.  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the 
Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord."  "  The  Lobd  he  is  God  ;  there 
is  none  else  beside  him."  "  There  is  none  other  God  but 
one."  Yet  this  One  God  is  manifested,  or  held  forth  to  us 
in  this  book,  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit ;  each  possess- 
ing the  same  attributes,  and  claiming  and  receiving  the 
same  worship.  Hence  we  have  a  Tkinity  in  TJNrrT ;  tueee 
PERSONS,  One  God.  I  am  taught,  too,  that  God  is  every- 
where present.  "^Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth  ?  saith  the 
Lord."  "  Behold,  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  can- 
not contain  thee."  "  In  bim  we  live,  and  move,  and  have 
our  being."  His  power,  like  his  presence,  knows  no  bounds. 
"  Is  there  any  thing  too  bard  for  God  ?  "  "  He  spake  and 
it  was  don e^  he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast."  "Heup- 
holdeth  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,"  As  this 
book  teaches  me  that  God  is  omnijiresent,  it  also  teaches 
me  that  he  is  omniscient,  and  perfect  in  knowledge.  He 
sees  and,  knows  all  persons  and  things.  "  Known  unto  him 
are  all  his  works."  "  Hell  and  destruction  are  without  a 
covering  before  him,  how  much  more  the  hearts  of  the 
children  of  men!"  "Lord,  thou  bast  searched  me  and 
known  me  ;  thou  knowest  my  down-sitting  and  my  up-ris- 
ing." "  The  darkness  hideth  not  from  thee,  but  the  night 
shineth  as  the  day."  "  Great  is  the  Lord,  his  understand- 
ing is  infinite."  This  wonderful  book  teaches  me  that  this 
wonderful  Being  is  immutable.  This  is  indicated  by  the 
sublime  title  I  AM.  It  is  also  asserted  in  the  most  striking 
language:  "1  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not."  He  is  "the 
Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is  no  variableness,  neither 
shadow  of  turning."  "  The  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and 
forever."  His  wisdom,  like  his  other  perfections,  is  declar- 
ed to  be  j)erfect.    As  to  his  works,  it  is  said :  "  lu  wisdom 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


121 


hast  thou  made  them  all."  And  he  is  emphatically  de- 
clared to  be  "  the  only  wise  God."  "  He  is  mighty  in 
strength  and  wisdom."  "To  the  intent  that  now  unto 
the  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly  ^feces  might  be 
knowTi  by  the  church,  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God."  On 
the  subject  of  God's  goodness,  the  writers  of  this  book  em- 
ploy language  the  most  elevated,  glowing,  and  rapturous. 
His  goodness  they  represent  as  goodness  of  nature,  as  be- 
ing one  of  his  essential  perfections.  "  Thou  art  good  and 
doest  good."  "The  Lord  is  good  to  all,  and  his  tender 
mercies  are  over  all  his  works."  We  are  assured  that  "  He 
dehghts  in  mercy,"  that  his  is  "  loving  kindness  and  tender 
mercy."  His  very  names  import  the  goodness  of  his  nature, 
and  convey  the  most  overwhelming  ideas  of  that  goodness  ; 
such  as  "The  gracious  one,"  "The  all-sufficient  and  all- 
bountiful  pourer  forth  of  all  good."  So  critics  interpret 
some  of  the  wonderful  names  of  this  wonderful  Being,  who 
is  as  good  as  he  is  great.  Nor  are  the  writers  of  this  book 
satisfied  with  asserting  the  essential  goodness  of  the  Divine 
nature,  but,  becoming  rapturous  in  view  thereof,  they  ex- 
claim :  "  O  that  men  would  praise  the  Lord  for  his 
goodness  and  for  his  won(ierful  woi'ks  to  the  children.of 
men  !  "  And  becoming  still  more  rapturous,  they  exclaim  in 
a  burst  of. holy  joy:  "Let  every  thing  that  hath  breath 
praise  the  Lord." 

Everywhere  in  this  book  I  meet  with  the  most  sublime 
and  elevated  conceptions  of  the  holiness  of  this  God,  and 
of  his  law.  He  is  the  "  Holt,  Holy,  Holt,  Lord  God  Al- 
mighty." And  his  "  Law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment 
holy,  and  just,  and  good."  He  is  "  The  Holt  One  of  Is- 
rael" Here,  too,  the  sacred  writers  become  rapturous 
and  exclaim  :  "  Who  is  like  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  among 
the  mighty  ones?  Who  Ls  like  thee,  glorious  in  holi- 
6 


122  watson's  theological  institutes 


ness,  fearful  in  praises,  doing  wonders  ?  "  And  again, 
"  Who  shall  not  fear  thee,  0  Lokd,  and  glorify  thy  name, 
for  thou  only  art  Holy."  The  book  that  teaches  these 
sublime  lessons  as  to  the  holiness  of  the  Divine  nature  also 
teaches,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  justice  and  truth 
which  flow  from  this  JioUness  are,  like  their  source,  infinite. 
"A  God  of  truth,  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  right  art 
thou."  "  A  just  God  and  a  Saviour,  there  is  none  beside 
me."  "  The  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous 
altogether."  "Thy  word  is  truth."  "Thy  word  is  true 
from  the  beginning."  "  These  things  saith  he  that  is  holy, 
he  that  is  true."  "  Just  and  true  are  thy  ways,  thou  King 
of  saints."  Being  thus  just  and  true,  we  are  assured  he 
"  win  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works."  "  The 
Lord  our  God  is  the  God  of  gods,  and  Lord  of  lords,  a 
great  God,  a  mighty  and  terrible,  which  regardeth  not 
persons,  neither  taketh  rewards.  He  accepteth  not  the 
person  of  princes,  nor  regardeth  the  rich  more  than  the 
poor,  for  they  are  all  the  work  of  his  hands."  "  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons."  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  tho 
earth  do  right  ?  "  Seeing  this  God  is  represented  in  this 
book  as  making  promises  to  «nd  entering  into  covenant 
with  man,  his  faithfulness  is  frequently  asserted  with  an  ab- 
soluteness similar  to  that  which  certifies  to  us  his  goodness, 
justice,  and  truth."  "  He  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie, 
nor  the  son  of  man  that  he  should  repent."  "  God  is  faith- 
ful." "  Faithful  is  he  that  calleth  you,  who  also  will  do  it." 
"  But  the  Lord  is  faithful,  who  shall  stablish  you  and  keep 
you  from  evil."  "  Thy  faithfulness  reacheth  unto  the 
clouds."  "  Thy  faithfulness  shalt  thou  establish  in  the 
heavens."  "Thy  faithfulness  is  unto  all  generations." 
"  Great  is  thy  faithfulness." 

Such  are  some  of  the  wonderful  conceptions  which  this 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


123 


book  gives  us  of  that  God  whose  book  it  is.  But  it  gives 
us  to  understand  that  even  these  are  but  feeble  conceptions 
of  his  infinite  glory  and  majesty.  While  Paul  gazes  with 
adoring  wonder  and  rajiturous  delight  u2)on  this  Almighty 
Being  as  manifested  in  his  own  word,  he  can  only  exclaim : 
"  O  the  depth  of  the  riches,  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowl- 
edge of  God  !  how  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his 
ways  past  finding  out !  "  "  For  of  him,  and  through  him, 
and  to  him  are  all  things :  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever. 
Amen."  Mr.  Watson,  too,  after  contemplating  the  teach- 
ings of  this  wonderful  book  with  reference  to  the  being  and 
attributes  of  God,  gives  expression  to  his  sentiments  and 
feelings  in  the  following  very  appropriate  and  beautiful 
language  :  "  God  is  unsearchable.  All  we  see  or  hear  of 
him  is  faint  and  shadowy  manifestation.  Beyond  the  high- 
est glory,  there  is  yet  unpierced  and  unapproached  light, 
a  track  of  intellectual  and  moral  splendor  untravelled  by 
the  thoughts  of  the  contemplating  and  adoring  spirits  who 
are  nearest  to  his  throne.  The  manifestation  of  this  na- 
ture of  God,  never  fully  to  be  revealed,  because  infinite, 
is  rej^resented  as  constituting  the  reward  and  felicity  of 
heaven.  This  is  '  to  see  God.'  This  is  '  to  be  forever  with 
the  Lord.'  This  is  to  behold  his  glory  as  in  a  glass,  with 
unveiled  face,  and  to  be  changed  into  his  image,  from  glory 
to  glory,  in  boundless  progression  and  infinite  approxima- 
tion. Yet,  after  all,  it  will  be  as  true,  after  countless  ages 
spent  in  heaven  itself,  as  in  the  present  state,  that  none  by 
'  searching  can  find  out  God,'  that  is,  '  to  perfection.'  He 
will  even  then  be  '  a  God  that  hideth  himself ; '  and  widely 
as  the  illumination  may  extend,  clouds  and  darkness  will 
still  be  round  about  him."  With  these  thoughts  in  the 
mind,  and  still  lingering  as  in  the  presence  of  this  "  God  of 
glory,"  I  must  be  permitted  to  give  still  further  expression 


124  Watson's  theological  institutes 


to  my  present  sentiments  and  feelings  in  the  following 
words  from  the  29th  chapter  of  First  Chronicles  :  "  Blessed 
be  thou,  Lord  God  of  Israel  our  Father,  for  ever  and  ever. 
Thine,  O  Lord,  is  the  greatness,  and  the  power,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  victory,  and  the  majesty :  for  all  that  is  in 
the  heaven  and  in  the  earth  is  thine  ;  thine  is  the  kmgdom, 
O  Lord,  and  thou  art  exalted  as  head  above  all.  Both 
riches  and  honor  coiHe  of  thee,  and  thou  reignest  over  all ; 
and  in  thine  hand  is  power  and  might ;  and  in  thine  hand  it 
is  to  make  great,  and  to  give  strength  unto  all."  Equally 
appropriate  are  the  following  words  from  the  seventy-second 
psalm  :  "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God,  the  God  of  Israel,  who 
only  doeth  wondrous  things.  And  blessed  be  his  glorious 
name  for  ever :  and  let  the  whole  earth  be  filled  with  his 
glory.    Amen,  and  Amen." 

Thus  it  is  that  this  book  imparts  to  us  the  idea  of  God 
and  of  creation,  and  thus  it  is  that  it  gives  perfect  instruc- 
tion with  regard  to  God's  character,  the  perfection  of  his 
government,  and  the  boundlessness  of  his  reign.  So  per- 
fect that,  as  Watson  observes,  not  a  single  additional  con- 
ception, worthy  of  God,  has  ever  been  originated  by  man. 
And  its  teachings  as  to  man  are  equally. ample  and  satisfac- 
tory. It  gives  perfect  information  as  to  my  origin,  nature., 
and  destiny.  As  to  my  origin,  it  tells  gie  that  this  spirit, 
this  ego,  I  myself,  came  directly  from  God,  and  that  he 
formed  my  body  "  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth."  It  gives 
ample  information  as  to  the  derangement  and  weakness  of 
man's  spiritual  faculties,  the  badness  of  his  moral  nature, 
the  troubles  and  sorrows  with  which  he  is  loaded,  the  evils, 
both  natural  and  moral,  with  which  he  is  surrounded,  and 
also  as  to  the  infirmities  and  death  of  the  body.  Sin, 
rebellion  against  God,  is  the  cause  of  all.  It  points  me  to 
a  glorious  and  complete  remedy  for  all  this  evil  in  the 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


125 


infinite  goodness,  "wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  -n-orking 
through  the  atonement  and  intercession  of  Jesus  Christ  his 
Son  and  my  Saviour,  and  not  mine  only,  but  also  "  the 
Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  those  that  believe."  It 
tells  me  that  the  lidly  ISpirit,  in  consideration  of  this  atone- 
ment, Avill  come  in  answer  to  ray  believing  prayer,  and  not 
only  teach,  enlighten,  and  regenerate  my  soul,  but  will  also 
"bear  witness  with  my  spirit  "  to  the  fact  of  my  sonship  by 
regeneration  and  adoption  ;  that  he  will  apply  the  blood  of 
Jesus  so  as  to  cleanse  me  from  all  sin  ;  that  he  will  guide 
me  into  all  truth,  help  my  infirmities,  and  even  be  my  com- 
forter. As  to  my  destiny,  it  tells  me  that  is  eternal  union 
with  God  himself  in  ineffable  glory  upon  his  own  eternal 
throne.  Nor  is  my  dead  and  consumed  body  forgotten : 
this  book  tells  me  that  God  will  raise  it  from  the  grave  and 
make  it  like  unto  Christ's  glorious  body.  And  all  this,  I 
am  told,  is  secured  by  believing  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  being 
faithful  unto  death.  In  other  words,  by  following  the  plain 
teachings  of  this  book,  the  sum  of  which  is,  hear,  repent^ 
believe,  obey.  This  book  tells  me,  finally,  that  there  will  be 
a  general  resurrection,  and  a  general  judgment,  at  which 
all  intelligences  will  have  their  final  destinies  fixed,  eter- 
nally fixed,  in  the  bliss  of  heaven  or  the  misery  of  hell. 
And  all  this,  I  am  told,  will  be  done  by  the  unerring  decis-" 
ion  of  that  God  whose  book  this  is,  and  in  which  I  have 
all  the  information  specified  above. 

Kow,  all  this  information  man  has  or  may  have  from 
the  Bible  alone,  without  previously  proving  the  being 
of  a  God  from  the  material  world.  This  is  a  fact.  And 
it  will  be  remembered  that  Watson  admits  man's  ability  to 
collect  evidence  of  the  being  of  a  God  when  once  he  has 
the  idea;  but  here  is  not  only  the  idea,  but  complete 
instruction,  so  complete  that  nothing  can  be  added  to  it, 


126  watson's  theological  institutes 


and  all  this  from  the  Bible  alone,  without  any  help  from 
any  other  quarter.  As  to  the  proof  that  there  is  just  such 
a  God  as  is  here  described,  and  that  the  c-ther  teachings 
sjjccified  are  true,  that  is  the  next  point  that  we  proposed 
to  take  up.  We  take  the  ground  thaf  the  Bible  contains 
evidence  or  pj-oof  of  the  truth  of  its  own  teachuigs.  The 
objectors  to  Watson  take  the  negative  of  this  question. 
That  the  point  or  points  in  dispute  may  be  before  the 
reader,  we  will  give  the  words  of  our  opponents  just  here. 

"  If  we  owe  our  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God  to 
i-evelation  alone,  then  it  is  impossible  to  jyrove,  logically, 
the  existence  of  God:''  (Review,  p.  191.)  Mark  what  it  is 
that  is  declared  to  be  impossible.  "  If  we  owe  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  existence  of  God  to  revelation  alone,  then  we 
cannot  by  human  reason  prove  that  the  Bible  is  a  revela- 
tion from  God."  (Review,  p.  192.)  Mark  again  what  it  is 
that  cannot  be  done. 

"  Tlie  conclusion  is,  then,  logically  forced  upon  us,  if 
there  be  no  prior  proof  of  God's  existence  out  of  the  Bible, 
there  can  be  no  proof  that  the  Bible  is  of  God."  (Dr. 
Dempster,  "  N.  W.  C.  Advocate  "  of  24th  December,  1862.) 
Mark  again  Avhat  it  is  that  cannot  be  proved. 

•  Now,  whether  there  is  proof  "out  of  the  Bible"  or 
not,  we  hope  to  show  that  there  is  sufficient  proof  in  the 
Bible.  And,  if  we  do,  it  will  follow,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  the  above  conclusions  are  not  true,  and  the  systems 
biiilt  upon  them  must  of  necessity  fall  to  the  ground. 

We  take  the  ground  that  miracles  are  God's  seals  upon 
his  own  truth,  and  that  they  afford  the  evidence  or  proof 
claimed.  That  is,  every  revelation  or  truth  that  has  this 
seal  affixed  to  it,  is  thereby  proved  to  be  from  that  God 
whose  seal  it  is.  Before  proceeding  with  our  argument 
from  the  Bible,  we  will  give  the  foUoAving  quotations, 
which  we  think  will  be  quite  in  place  just  here. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


127 


"  Every  real  miracle  is  a  Avork  of  Grod."  (Richard  Wat- 
sou.) 

"  And  thus  we  see  that  the  only  question  concerning 
the  truth  of  Christianity  is,  whether  it  be  a  real  revela- 
tion." (Butler.) 

Speaking  of  Paul's  heavenly  visions,  Grotius  says  :  "  If 
we  believe  his  miracles,  what  reason  is  there  why  we  should 
not  believe  him  in  his  heavenly  visions,  and  in  his  receiving 
his  instructions  from  Christ  ?  "  And  again,  "  God  cannot 
more  efiectuttlly  recommend  the  authority  of  any  doctrine 
delivered  by  man  than  by  Avorking  miracles.  But  some 
say  that  these  wonders  were  done  by  the  help  of  devils ; 
but  this  calumny  has  been  already  confuted  from  hence, 
that  as  soon  as  the  doctrine  of  Christ  was  made  knoAvn,  all 
the  power  of  the  devils  was  broken."  He  quotes  the 
Fathers  in  proof  of  this,  and  we  might  quote  modern  mis- 
sionaries in  proof  of  the  same  thing.  The  following  quo- 
tation from  Ambrose,  as  given  by  Grotius,  is  also  worthy  a 
place  here  :  "  Whom  should  I  rather  believe  concerning  God 
than  God  himself"  When  God  gives  a  revelation  of  him- 
self, and  seals  that  revelation  with  a  miracle,  that  is  God 
speaking  concerning  himself ;  and  yet  there  are  three  wit- 
nesses, viz.,  the  messenger,  the  icord,  and  the  miraclq  ;  the 
messenger,  as  Ave  have  already  shown,  has  evidence  that  he 
has  his  message  from  God;  the  Avord  declares  the  character 
and  will  of  God ;  and  the  miracle,  which  none  but  God  can 
work,  seals  the  message  and  avouches  the  whole  to  be  from 
God. 


128  watson's  theological  rNSxrnjxES 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Being  now  in  possession  of  perfect  instruction  as  to  the 
being,  attributes,  government,  and  claims  of  God,  and,  in 
short,  as  to  every  other  particular,  all  we  want  now  is  the 
proq/",  and  for  this  we  return  to  Moses  and  his  "  wonders 
in  the  land  of  Ham."  Here  he  is  before  us,  with  "  the  rod 
of  God  in  his  hand."  Himself,  Aaron,  and  the  people  of 
Israel  in  general,  particularly  the  elders,  have  been  con- 
vinced already  that  he  has  his  commission  and  authority 
•from  the  true  God,  the  God  of  their  fathers  ;  and  now  the 
Egyptians,  before  whom  this  same  God  is  set  forth  clothed 
with  infinite  attributes,  are  to  have  satisfactory  evidence  of 
the  same  truths  by  the  same  or  still  more  wonderful  mir- 
acles. And  remember,  so  far  as  the  facts  are  certified  to  us, 
the  miracles  alford  us  the  same  evidence  that  they  afforded 
the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians. 

The  history  of  the  ten  plagues  may  be  read  in  the 
seventh  and  five  following  chapters  of  the  book  of  Exodus, 
and  a  very  striking  epitome  of  this  history  may  be  found 
in  the  105th  psalm,  so  that  we  need  only  make  a  few 
remarks  for  the  jDurpose  of  fixing  attention  upon  the  more 
striking  features  of  these  wonderful  occurrences. 

Notice  then,  first,  that  Moses  and  Aaron  act  simj^ly  as 
they  are  commanded  by  that  God  from  whom  they  have 


A^'D  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED.  129 

their  commission  and  authority  ;  second,  that  to  that  God 
they  ascribe  all  the  miracles ;  third,  they  give  previous 
notice  of  the  wonderful  event,  stating  the  very  time  of  its 
occurrence  ;  fourth,  at  the  time  specified  they  publicly  put 
forth  an  act,  and  the  result  immediately  follows  ;  fifth,  the 
miracles  are  such  as  are  felt  and  seen  throughout  the  land 
of  Egypt,  except,  sixth,  that  part  occupied  by  the  children 
of  Israel ;  tliat  part  was  exempted  from  all  the  plagues. 
"  In  the  land  of  Goshen,  where  the  children  of  Israel  were, 
was  there  no  hail."  "And  Moses  stretched  forth  his  hand 
toward  heaven,  and  there  was  thick  darkness  over  all  the 
land  of  Egypt  three  days ;  they  saw  not  one  another, 
neither  rose  any  from  his  place  for  three  days,  but  all  the 
children  of  Israel  had  light  in  their  dwellings."  Seventh, 
these  plagues  were  of  long  continuance,  so  that  all  had 
time  not  only  to  feel,  but  to  test  their  terrible  reality.  For 
instance,  all  the  waters  of  EgyjDt  being  turned  into  blood, 
continued  so  for  seven  days,  and  the  "thick  dai-kness" 
continued  three  days.  Eighth,  these  plagues  not  only 
came  at  the  word  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  which  they  uttered 
in  the  name  tef  th-^  Lord,  "  in  the  sight  of  Pharaoh,  and  in 
the  sight  of  his  servants,"  but  they  went  away  also  at  their 
word,  and  that  instantaneously.  Ninth,  these  miracles 
were  such  that  none  but  the  God  of  Israel  could  work 
them,  and  there  was  no  j^ower  that  could  resist  them,  for, 
if  God  permitted  the  magicians  to  practise  deception  for  a 
time,  or  work  lying  wonders  by  satanic  influence,  it  was 
only  to  expose  them,  and  manifest  his  power  still  more. 
Tenth,  the  end  for  which  these  miracles  were  wrought  is 
thus  distinctly  and  often  stated  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  In 
this  shalt  thou  know  that  I  am  the  Lord."  "  That  thou 
mayest  know  that  there  is  none  like  unto  the  Lord  our 
God."  "  And  I  will  sever  in  that  day  the  land  of  Goshen, 
c* 


130  watson's  theological  institdtes 

in  which  my  people  dwell,  that  no  swarms  of  flies  shall  be 
there,  to  the  end  thou  may  est  *know  that  I  am  the  Loeb 
in  the  midst  of  the  earth."  "  Thus  saith  the  Loed  God  of 
the  Hebrews,  Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may  serve  me. 
For  I  will  at  this  time  send  all  my  plagues  upon  thine 
heart,  and  upon  tliy  servants,  and  upon  thy  people,  that 
thou  mayest  know  that  there  is  none  hke  me  in  all  the 
earth."  "  And  in  very  deed  for  this  cause  have  I  raised 
thee  up  [margin :  made  thee  stand],  for  to  show  in  thee  my 
power,  and  that  my  name  may  be  declared  throughout  all 
the  earth." 

So  frequently,  emphatically,  and  unmistakably,  is  the 
great  end  of  all  these  miracles  stated  ;  even  to  demonstrate 
the  being,  and  will,  of  that  God  whose  eternity,  character, 
and  government  are  so  forcibly  asserted,  and  developed  by 
Moses  and  the  other  inspired  writers.  Nor  was  this  for 
the  conviction  of  the  Egyptians  only,  but  that,  saith  the 
Lord,  "My  name  may  be  declared  throughout  all  the 
earth."  I  say  the  end  was  not  only  to  demonstrate  the 
being  of  a  God,  but  to  demonstrate  the  being  of  that  God, 
whom  Moses  declared  to  be  eternal,  and  plothed  with 
infinite  perfections ;  yea,  and  to  demonstrate  that  there  is 
no  other  god ;  and  also  to  estabhsh  the  fact  that  all  the 
teachings  of  Moses  are  the  teachings  of  this  very  God. 
Now  seeing  an  infinitely  wise  God  employs  those  means 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  end  or  ends  here  specified, 
it  follows  that  they  are  the  very  best  means  that  can  be 
employed  under  the  circumstances.  It  follows,  too,  that 
when  Watson's  opponents  assert,  as  above,  that  the  being 
of  a  God  must  first  be  proved  "  from  the  facts  of  creation 
and  the  intuitions  of  pure  reason,"  and  that  till  this  be  done 
"  we  cannotiirove  that  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God," 
they  not  only  join  issue  with  Watson,  but  with  God  him- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


131 


self,  who  has  adopted  this  very  method,  and  has  adopted  it 
as  the  very  best,  if  not  the  only  method,  and  that,  too, 
■without  any  attempt,  before  or  after,  to  prove  the  being 
of  a  God  from  the  works  of  creation.  If  any  one  should 
attempt  to  evade  this  conclusion  by  saying  that  the' Egyp- 
tians already  knew  God,  as  all  men  do,  by  intuition,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  say  that  this  assumption  is  contradicted 
by  focts,  and  by  the  history  before  us.  It  also  represents 
God  as  undertaking  to  teach  the  Egyptians  what  they 
already  knew,  and  as  working  miracles  to  produce  a  faith 
wliich  they  already  possessed.  But  if,  notwithstanding  all 
facts  and  consequences,  any  one  should  still  persist  in 
saying  that  the  Egyptians  had  already  a  knowledge  of  God 
by  intuition,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  them  to  Pharaoh, 
who  himself  rejects  their  assumption,  and  corrects  their 
mistake,  by  saying  :  "  Who  is  the  Loed,  that  I  should  obey 
his  voice  to  let  Israel  go  ?  I  know  not  the  Lokd,  neither 
will  I  let  Israel  go."  Now  it  was  to  convince  Pharaoh  and 
other  atheists  of  the  being  of  Israel's  God,  and  of  the  truth 
of  revelation,  that  God  wrought  miracles,  without  first 
attemjiting  a  proof  from  the  works  of  creation  ;  nor  was  it 
altogether  in  vain  that  he  did  so,  as  the  following  quota- 
tions do  most  clearly  show :  "  He  that  feared  the  Loed 
among  the  servants  of  Pharaoh  made  his  servants  and  his 
cattle  flee  into  the  houses.  And  he  that  regarded  not  the 
word  of  the  Loed  left  his  servants  and  his  cattle  in  the 
field."  Thus  while  the  masses  of  the  people  "regarded  not 
the  word  of  the  Loed,"  there  were  some  who  "feared 
the  word  of  the  Loed."  They  "feared  the  word  of  the 
Loed  "  by  Moses,  in  view  of  the  six  preceding  plagues,  or 
miracles ;  so  completely  have  these  miracles  proved  the 
being  of  a  God  and  the  truth  of  revelation.  Nay,  convic- 
tion is  riveted  even  on  the  mind  of  Pharaoh  by  these 


132  watson's  theological  msxiniTES  ' 

miracles ;  so  that  the  following  iitterances  are  wrung  from 
him  :  "  And  Pharaoh  sent  and  called  for  Moses  and  Aaron, 
and  said  unto  them,  I  have  sinned  this  time :  the  Lord  is 
righteous,  and  I  and  my  people  are  wicked.  Entreat  the 
Lord  (for  it  is  enough)  that  there  be  no  more  thunderinga 
and  hail ;  and  I  will  let  you  go,  and  ye  shall  stay  no 
longer."  And  again :  "  Then  Pharaoh  called  for  Moses 
and  Aaron  in  haste ;  and  said,  I  have  sinned  against  tha 
Lord  your  God,  and  against  you.  Now  therefore  forgive, 
I  pray  thee,  my  sin  only  this  once,  and  entreat  the  Loi  d 
your  God  that  he  may  take  away  from  me  this  death  only." 
But  if,  notwithstanding  all  this,  it  should  still  be  asserted 
that  revelation,  though  sealed  by  miracles,  is  of  no  use  till 
the  being  of  a  God  is  first  proved  "  from  the  facts  of  crea- 
tion and  the  intuitions  of  pure  reason,"  and  that  before 
this  is  done  it  is  even  "  impossible  to  prove,  logically,  the 
existence  of  a  God,"  the  authors  of  such  assertions  must  not 
blame  us  for  drawing  from  their  own  premises  conclusions 
that  are  inevitable.  And  one  of  these  conclusions  is  this: 
those  who  take  this  ground  resist  evidence  which  not  only 
convinced.  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians  mentioned  above, 
but  even  constrained  the  magicians  themselves  to  exclaim  : 
"  This  is  the  finger  of  God  !  "  This  fiiith  and  this  confesj- 
sion  of  faith  were  produced  by  the  third  plague,  and  that 
too  without  any  "  prior  proof  of  God's  existence."  So  that 
those  Avho,  in  the  face  of  all  this,  still  persist  in  maintaining 
the  position  here  ojiposed,  prove  that  they  are  more  un- 
believing even  than  Jannes  and  Jambres,  who  ^-audidly 
acknowledged  the  evidence  to  be  irresistible  and  declare(i 
their  faith  in  Israel's  God,  and  in  his  revelation  by  Moses, 
by  giving  up  the  contest  and  exclaiming :  "  This  is  the 
finger  of  God."  They  evidently  believed  with  Watson  that 
"  every  real  miracle  is  a  work  of  God."    And  with  Grotiua 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFEXDED. 


133 


they  seemed  to  say:  "If  we  believe  his  miracles,  what 
reason  is  there  why  we  should  not  believe  him  in  his  heav- 
enly visions,  and  in  his  receiving  his  instructions^'  from 
the  God  whom  he  declares  to  be  eternal  in  his  being,  and 
infinite  in  his  attributes?  They  evidently  conclude  with 
Butler,  too,  "  that  the  only  question  concerning  the  truth 
of  Christianity  is,  whether  it  be  a  revelation."  And  that 
the  truth  delivered  by  Moses  was  a  revelation  from  God, 
•  was  just  what  it  professed  to  be,  was,  according  to  their 
own  showing,  demonstrated  by  the  stupendous  miracles 
Avuich  they  had  witnessed,  and  which  had  been  wrought, 
avowedly,  to  prove  this  very  thing.  We  formerly  showed 
that  man  could  not  possibly  originate  a  knowledge  of  the 
God  of  the  Bible,  that  he  could  not  derive  such  knowledge 
from  the  works  of  creation ;  and  it  is  equally  evident  that 
the  works  of  creation  could  not  prove  that  the  teachings  of 
Moses  were  a  revelation  from  the  God  of  the  Hebrews; 
but  miracles  proved  this,"  even  to  the  conviction  of  Pharaoh 
and  his  magicians.  And'What  is  true  of  the  teachings  of 
Moses,  is  true  of  the  teachings  of  all  the  inspired  writers. 
The  teachings  that  are  declared  to  be  from  the  God  of  the 
Bible,  and  in  proof  thereof  are  sealed  by  the  mii-acles  that 
are  recorded  in  the  Bible,  must  be  from  that  God,  and  can- 
not possibly  be  from  any  other.  This  conclusion  seems  to 
us  inevitable.  The  miracles  and  the  teachings  of  the  Bible 
evidently  come  from  the  same  source  ;  for  none  but  the 
God  of  the  Bible  could  work  these  miracles,  and  he  cer- 
tainly would  not,  he  could  not,  work  them  to  prove  that 
these  teachings  were  his,  if  they  were  not  his.  It  follows 
that  to  establish  the  miracles  of  the  Bible,  is  to  establish 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible ;  and  he  who  knows  the  end 
from  the  beginnmg  wrought  these  miracles  for  this  very 
end,  as  we  have  shown  above ;  and  they  answer  this  end,  as 


13-4  watson's  theological  lnstitdtes 


might  be  expected,  for  God  never  makes  a  mistake.  Thus 
it  is  that  the  Bible  contains  in  itself,  and  imparts  to  man, 
the  idea  of  God,  perfect  teaching^  and  demonstrative  proof. 
A.nd  the  process  is  so  simple  and  easy,  that  you  have  only 
to  prove  the  single  fact  that  the  miracles  were  iorought, 
and  you  thereby  jjrove  that  the  teachings  of  which  they 
are  the  seals,  are  from  the  God  of  the  Bible;  and  the 
teachings  thus  proved  to  be  from  the  God  of  the  Bible,  are, 
like  their  Almighty  Source,  perfect  ;  so  perfect  that  we 
are  commanded  on  pain  of  eternal  death  neither  to  add  to 
nor  take  from  them.  The  following  lines  contain  a  sublime 
and  glorious  truth : 

"  What  glory  gilds  the  sacred  page  ! 
Majestic  like  the  sun, 
It  gives  a  light  to  every  age  ; 

It  gives,  BUT  BORROWS  NONE." 

The  reader  is  now  prepared  'to  judge  between  these 
conclusions,  and  those  with  which  we  join  issue  ;  the  sum 
of  which  is  contained  in  Dr.  Dempster's  grand  proposition, 
which  it  may  be  well  to  repeat  just  here  :  ' 

"  If  there  be  no  prior  proof  of  God's  existence  out  of 
the  Bible,  there  can  be  no  proof  that  the  Bible  is  of  God." 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this,  we  hold  that  the  Bible  is  com- 
plete in  itself,  both  as  to  teaching  and  evidence.  We  say 
with  Grotius,  if  we  believe  its  miracles,  we  must  believe  its 
teachings.  And  we  say  with  Butler,  "  The  only  question 
concerning  the  truth  of  Christianity  [or  the  Bible],  is  whe- 
ther it  be  a  revelation  ?  "  And  we  not  only  say  that  mir- 
acles prove  this,  but  that  they  prove  it  as  nothing  else  will. 
In  jiroof  of  this,  let  us  turn  to  Moses  again.  God  sends 
him  to  teach  liis  will,  say  to  the  Israelites  ;  now,  how  is  he 
to  convince  the  Israelites  that  he  has  this  teaching  from 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


135 


God  Almighty  ?  Is  he  to  appeal  to  the  facts  of  creation  ? 
It  Avould  be  perfect  nonsense  ;  there  is  no  connection  what- 
ever. Even  if  the  being  and  attributes  of  the  God  of  the 
Bible  could  be  proved  from  the  visible  Avorld,  that  would 
not  prove  that  Moses  had  his  teaching  from  that  God,  any 
more  than  it  would  prove  that  Jannes  and  Jambres  had 
their  teaching  from  him.  Would  you  have  him  ajjpeal  to 
the  harmony  of  his  teachings,  the  agreement  of  all  the 
parts  thereof?  That  would  be  little  better,  for  multitudes 
declare  that  the  Pentateuch  is  full  of  contradiction.  Would 
you  have  him  appeal  to  the  moral  purity  of  his  teachings  ? 
That,  too,  would  be  to  little  purpose,  for  multitudes  declare 
that  although  much  of  his  teaching  is  excellent,  there  is 
also  much  that  is  wicked  in  his  teaching ;  hence  they  say 
they  will  just  take  and  reject  as  they  see  fit ;  so  that  they 
are  left  to  their  own  opinion  after  all.  Even  projAecy  will 
not  substitute  for  miracle,  for  it  affords  no  evidence  save  in 
its  fulfilment,  and  that,  being  yet  in  the  future,  will  not 
answer  for  the  present.^  But  when  stupendous  miracles 
are  wrought,  mri-acles  that  are  seen  and  felt  throughout  the 
land  of  Egypt,  then  the  most  stupid  Egyptian  will  both 
understand  and  fear ;  while  Pharaoh  himself  acknowledges 
his  guilt,  and  the  magicians  exclaim,  "  This  is  the  finger  of 
God."  How  is  it  possible,  I  say,  to  doubt  that  Moses  speaks 
the  icord,  and  acts  by  the  authority,  of  God  Almighty, 
when,  to  prove  these  very  points,  that  God  works  the 
stupendous  miracles  specified  above,  and  then  leads  some 
three  millions  of  people  through  a  sea  some  twelve  miles 
across  ?  I  say,  how  is  it  possible  to  doubt  in  view  of  such 
evidence  ?  There  is  a  road  cut  through  the  sea  Avhere  the 
waters  are  some  twenty-eight  yards  deep  !  And  these 
Avatcrs  form  a  wall  on  either  hand,  perhaps  some  forty 
yards  high,  and  immovable  as  a  Avail  of  brass  ;  while  some 


136  watson's  theological  institutes 


three  millions  of  peoj^le,  pursued  by  mighty  armies  of  their 
enemies,  urge  on,  in  their  escape  from  bondage  and  death, 
between  these  wonderful  walls,  and  through  depths  hither- 
to unexplored,  save  by  leviathan  or  other  creatures  whose 
home  is  in  the  mighty  waters.  There  they  go  !  I  say,  in 
the  depths  of  the  ^ sea,  yet  on  "dry  land!"  Mcthinks  I 
Iiear  the  solid  tread  of  some  six  millions  of  feet,  as  they  mo- 
mently fall  upon  the  highway  which  God  has  prepared  for 
them  away  down  in  the  depths  of  the  Red  Sea.  Tliere 
they  go  !  during  the  silent  watches  of  the  night,  when  all, 
save  Israel,  is  wrapped  in  darkness :  but  the  God  that  gave 
Israel  light  in  Goshen,  while  the  Egyptians  were  wrapped 
in  thick  darkness,  now  gives  Israel  light  during  midnight 
darkness,  even  in  the  depths  of  the  sea ;  whilst  the  same 
Egyptians  are  still  in  darkness,  though  only  separated  from 
Israel  by  a  pillar  of  cloud.  This  cloud,  however,  gives 
light  to  Israel,  while  it  only  increases  the  midnight  gloom 
with  which  Israel's  enemies  are  shrouded.  Let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly noticed,  that  these  miracles  in  the  Red  Sea,  like 
those  in  Egypt,  occur  instantaneously  when  Moses  simply 
lifts  up  his  hand,  which  he  does  by  the  command  of  the 
Lord.  Here  is.  the  record:  "And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses  *  *  *  *  lift  up  thy  rod,  and  stretch  out  thine  hand 
over  the  sea,  and  divide  it:  and  the  children  of  Israel  shall 
go  on  dry  ground  through  the  midst  of  the  sea."  He  did 
so,  and  the  sea  divided,  and  Israel  passed  through.  "And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Stretch  out  thine  hand  over 
the  sea,  that  the  waters  may  come  again  upon  the  Egyp- 
tians, upon  tlieir  chariots,  and  upon  their  horsemen.  And 
Moses  stretched  forth  his  hand  over  the  sea,  and  the  sea 
returned  to  his  strength  when  the  morning  appeared ;  and 
the  Egyptians  fled  against  it;  and  the  Lord  overtlirew 
[margin  :  shook  off  ]  the  Egyptians  in  the  midst  of  the  sea. 


AXD  TOE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


137 


And  tlie  waters  returned  and  covered  the  chariots,  and  the 
horsemen,  and  all  the  host  of  Pharaoh  that  came  into  the 
sea  after  them  :  there  remained  not  so  much  as  one  of 
them.  But  the  children  of  Israel  walked  upon  dry  land  in 
the  midst  of  the  sea ;  and  the  waters  v:ere  a  wall  unto  them 
on  their  right  hand,  and  on  their  left.  Thus  the  Lord 
saved  Israel  that  day  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Egyptians : 
and  Israel  saw  the  Egyptians  dead  upon  the  "sea  shore. 
Aid  Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  the  Lord  did  upon 
the  Egyptians:  and  the  people  feared  the  Lord,  and  be- 
lieved the  Lord,  and  his  servant  Moses."  Mark  the  results 
of  these  miracles :  "  The  people  feared  the  Lord,  and  be- 
lieved the  Lord,  and  his  servant  Moses."  They  not  only 
beUeved  in  the  being  of  an  Intelligent  First  Cause,  but  they 
believed  in  that  very  God  whose  eternity  and  infinite  per- 
fections are  proclaimed  by  Moses  in  language  so  forcible 
and  elevated,  and  in  strains  so  subHme  and  rapturous.  And 
the  people,  too,  caught  those  subHme  conceptions  of  God, 
and  gave  expression  to  them  in  the  rapturous  and  glorious 
song  which  immediately  follows  the  words  quoted  above. 
And  they  not  only  believed  in  tliis  God,  but  they  "  believed 
in  his  servant  Moses."  That  is,  they  received  his  teach- 
ing, and  submitted  to  his  authority,  as  coming  from  this 
God.  And  they  did  so  because  God  affixed  his  seal  to 
these  teachings  by  working  the  miracles  here  recorded. 

But  all  such. conclusions  from  such  premises,  according 
to  Watson's  reviewer,  are  "  a  mere  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion." Such  persons  are  "  all  the  while  arguing  in  a  vicious 
circle."  "  As  yet  the  truth  of  revelation  is  under  discus- 
sion, and  is  itself  in  abeyance ; "  and  must  continue  so  tiU 
the  being  and  attributes  of  God  are  first  proved  from  "  the 
facts  of  the  universe  and  the  intuitions  of  the  human  mind." 
It  is  even  so,  says  Dr.  Dempster :  "  The  conclusion  is  logi- 


138  watson's  tiieolooical  instittjtes 


cally  forced  upon  us,  if  there  be  no  prior  proof  of  God's  exist- 
ence orit  of  the  Bible^  there  can  be  no  proof  that  the  Bible 
is  of  God,"  Regardless  of  the  above  miracles,  and  of  all 
the  miracles  and  prophecies  recorded  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  and  by  which  God  seals  every  word  of  revela- 
tion, I  say,  regardless  of  all  this,  Mr.  "Watson's  reviewer 
exclaims,  "  How  am  I  to  certify  myself  that  such  a  revela- 
tion has  been  given  ?  True,  we  have  a  book  which  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  revelation  from  God — a  book  which  s.fys, 
'  There  is  a  God ! '  and  which  records  numerous  appearances 
of  God  to  men  in  bygone  days.  But  that  assertion  is  not 
proof  that  such  a  Being  does  exist,  any  more  than  the  asser- 
tion of  the  Koran  or  the  Zendavesta,  until  I  have  rationally 
demonstrated  that  the  Bible  is  an  authentic  revelation,  and 
that  here  I  have  the  veritable  words  of  God."  Thus,  while 
all  Israel  are  fully  satisfied  that  Moses  proclaims  "  the  verit- 
able words  of  God,"  being  convinced  of  this  by  the  wonder- 
ful miracles  recorded  in  Exodus,  and  are  smging  their 
triumphant  song  in  consequence ;  Watson's  reviewer  has 
no  song  to  sing  !  While  the  millions  of  Israel,  whom  the 
Lord  brought  up  out  of  Egyjrt  with  a  high  hand  and  an 
outstretched  arm,  and  through  the  sea,  as  on  dry  land ;  I 
say,  while  these  millions  are  singing  their  rapturous  song 
in  all  the  triumphs  of  faith  in  God,  and  in  his  revelation  ; 
Watson's  reviewer  stands  disconsolate  and  sad,  exclaiming, 
"  How  am  I  to  certify  myself  that  such  a  revelation  has 
been  given  ?  "  And  no  marvel,  for,  strange  to  say,  he  sees 
nothing  in  it  but  mere  assertion  ;  and  "  that  assertion,"  he 
says,  "  is  not  proof  that  such  a  Being  does  exist,  any  more 
than  the  assertion  of  the  Koran  or  the  Zendavesta."  ISTow 
we  readily  admit  that  mere  assertion  will  prove  nothing ; 
but  pray,  does  the  Bible  contain  no  more  than  mere  asser- 
tion ?    That  any  one  who  ever  read  the  Bible  should  as- 


I 


AND  TOE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


139 


sunie  so,  is  little  less  marvellous  than  the  miracles  and 
projihecies  which  such  an  assumption  ignores.  Now  sup- 
pose Watson's  reviewer  should  be  sent  to  Mr.  Jefferson 
Davis,  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  as  Moses  was  sent  to 
Pharaoh  ;  sui)pose  the  call,  the  authority,  the  evidence,  and 
every  other  particular  were  the  same.  '  And  suppose  he 
should  go  to  the  President  of  the  Southern  Confederacy, 
with  the  rod  of  God  in  his  hand,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  God,  demand  the  release  of  all  the  slaves ;  and  on  his 
refusing  to  grant  that  request,  which  he  certainly  would, 
sujjpose  Mr.  C.  should  distinctly  warn  Mr.  Davis  of  the  con- 
sequences, as  Moses  did  Pharaoh ;  and  let  it  be  supposed 
that  he  should  then  speak  and  act,  as  is  recorded  of  Moses 
and  Aaron  in  the  seventeenth  and  four  following  verses  of 
the  seventh  chapter  of  Exodus ;  and  let  us  suppose  that  the^ 
Mississippi  and  all  the  waters  in  the  Confederate  States  arc 
turned  into  blood,  and  continue  so  for  seven  days ;  and  all 
this,  it  is  sujiposed,  takes  place  according  to  previous  and 
public  notice,  given  by  Mr.  C,  and  that  too,  immediately 
on  his  lifting  up  his  hand  in  the  open  day,  "  in  the  sight 
of"  Mr.  Davis  "  and  in  the  sight  of  his  servants."  Now  let 
it  be  supposed,  further,  that  after  similar  notice  in  each 
case,  nine  more  plagues  arc  poured  out  upon  the  Confed- 
erate States,  just  such  as  were  poured  out  upon  Egypt,  and 
each  plague  follows  the  lifting  up  of  Mr.  C.'s  hand,  or  on 
some  similar  signal  being  given  by  him,  and  on  his  raising 
his  hand,  or  offering  up  a  prayer,  these  plagues  go  as  quick- 
ly as  they  came.  We  will  now  sujipose  that  after  the  first- 
born of  man  and  beast,  throughout  the  Confederate  States, 
are  slain,  Mr.  C.  is  permitted  to  dej^art  with,  say,  three 
milUons  of  slaves,  men,  women,  and  children,  "  and  a  mixed 
multitude  with  them ;  and  flocks,  and  herds,  even  very 
much  cattle."    There  Mr.  C.  goes  at  the  head  of  this  vast 


140 


watson's  theologicai,  institutes 


multitude,  as  mixed  as  it  is  vast,  but  "  not  a  dog ''  is  per- 
mitted to  "  move  his  tongue  against  man  or  beast."  "  And 
the  Lord  went  before  them  by  day  in  a  pillar  of  cloud,  to 
lead  them  the  way ;  and  by  night  in  a  pillar  of  fire,  to 
give  them  light :  to  go  by  day  and  night.  He  took  not 
away  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  by  day,  nor  the  pillar  of  fire  by 
night,  from  before  the  people."  We  Avill  now  suppose  that 
Mr.  C.  and  his  three  millions  of  slaves  have  arrived  at  the 
Chesapeake  Bay,  and  that  the  President  and  all  the  armies 
of  the  Confederate  States  overtake  them  there,  being  deter- 
mined to  bring  them  back  or  destroy  them ;  but,  we  will 
suppose  Mr.  C.  lifts  his  rod  again,  and  points  it  across  the 
bay,  upon  Avhich  the  waters  divide  and  stand  as  a  wall 
some  thirty  to  forty  yards  high  on  either  hand,  leaving  a 
road  sufiiciently  wide  for  the  millions  that  are  to  travel 
upon  it.  In  the  evening  they  commence  their  journey  and 
in  tlie  morning  they  are  in  Maryland  ;  in  the  mean  time  the 
pillar  of  cloud  has  passed  from  the  front  to  the  rear,  divid- 
ing the  escaped  slaves  from  the  Southern  armies  who  are 
still  pursuing ;  but  as  soon  as  Mr.  C.  and  his  people  reach 
the  other  side  and  are  safe  in  Maryland,  he  again  points  his 
rod  over  the  bay,  "and  the  sea  returned  to  his  strength 
when  the  morning  appeared,"  and  the  Confederate  armies 
"  fled  against  it ;  and  the  Lord  overthrew  the  "  Confederate 
armies  "  in  the  midst  of  the  sea  .  .  .  there  remained  not  so 
much  as  one  of  them."  We  will  now  suppose  that  Mr.  C, 
composes  such  a  hymn  as  is  found  in  the  15th  chapter  of 
Exodus,  and  he  and  all  the  people  sing  it,  and  after  suitable 
devotions,  wherein  they  give  all  the  praise  to  the  Lord 
God  of  their  fathers,  they  pursue  their  journey  till  they 
come  to  the  Blue  Mountains,  and  there,  from  the  highest 
of  these  mountains,  as  from  Sinai,  God  speaks  to  the  people, 
while  tlie  thunders  peal,  the  lightnings  flash,  the  moun- 


I 


AND  TUE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


141 


tains  iremble,  and  "  burn  with  fire  unto  the  midst  of  heaven, 
with  iarkness,  clouds,  and  thick  darkness."  "  And  when 
the  1  )ice  of  the  trumpet  sounded  long,  and  waxed  louder 
and  ]  mder,"  Mr.  C.  sjjake,  "  and  God  answered  him  by  a 
voice,"  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  people.  He  also  gave  him, 
we  will  suppose,  a  law  for  the  people  "  written  upon  two 
tables  of  stone  with  the  finger  of  God."  You  may  suj^pose 
too,  that  Mr.  C.  journeyed  with  this  people  forty  years  ; 
they  Avere  all  fed  with  manna  from  heaven,  tfteir  shoes  and 
clothing  did  not  wax  old,  neither  did  their  feet  swell,  dur- 
ing these  forty  years.  Finally,  in  short,  we  will  suppose 
that  Mr.  C.  wrought  all  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  at  the  age  of  an  hundred  and  twenty  years  he 
took  leave  of  the  Afi^cans  as  Moses  did  of  the  Israehtes  : 
"  His  eye  was  not  dim  nor  his  natural  force  abated."  And 
God  took  his  spirit  to  heaven,  and  buried  his  body  we 
know  not  whei'e.  Xow  let  us  suppose  that  the  people 
whom  God  thus  delivered  by  the  hand  of  Mr.  C.  became  a 
great  nation,  and  a  record  of  all  these  mii-acles  is  laid  up  in 
the  archives  of  the  nation ;  and  annual  celebrations  of  these 
great  events  are  kept  by  the  whole  nation  to  the  present 
day.  Let  us,  I  say,  suppose  all  this,  and  we  must  suppose 
a  thousand  times  more  to  make  out  a  parallel  case,  but  let 
us  suppose  this  much,  and  then  let  us  suppose  that  Mr.  C. 
has  written  a  book  in  which  all  these  wonders  are  recorded, 
and  which  contains  teachings  so  perfect,  and  so  original, 
that  ever  after  nothing  of  imjjortance  could  be  found  iu 
systems  of  philosophy,  jurisprudence,  theology,  and  reli- 
gion, that  was  not  in  Mr.  C.'s  book,  at  least  in  its  principle. 
Finally  we  will  suppose  that  Dr.  Dempster  has  written 
an  able  work  in  defence  and  in  explanation  of  Mr.  C.'s 
book,  similar  to  that  which  Mr.  Watson  has  written  in 
defence  and  in  explanation  of  the  Bible.   Now  suppose  I 


142  watson's  theological  iNsnruTEs 


should  publish  a  review  of  the  doctor's  work,  and  declare 
it  to  be  "  a  mere  begging  of  the  question,"  and  that  he  was 
"all  the  while  arguing  in  a  vicious  circle,"  and  further, 
that  "if  there  be  no  prior  proof  of  God's  existence  out  of" 
Mr.  C.'s  book,  "  thdre  can  be  no  proof  of  its  truth."  Sup- 
l'>ose,  too,  that  I  should  assume  that  Mr.  C.'s  book  contained 
nothing  but  mere  assertion,  and  insist,  withal,  that  tUl  the 
being  and  attributes  of  a  God  are  i^roved  "  from  the  mate- 
rial universe  and  from  the  intuitions  of  the  human  mind," 
his  book  affords  no  evidence  of  the  being  of  a  God,  or  that 
it  contains  a  revelation  from  God.  "  True,"  I  continue, 
"  we  have  a  book  which  professes  to  be  a  revelation  from 
God — a  book  which  says  '  there  is  a  ,God ! '  and  which  re- 
cords numerous  'appearances  of  God  to  men  in  bygone 
days.'  But  that  assertion  is  no  proof  that  such  a  being  does 
exist,  any  more  than  the  assertion  of  the  Koran  or  the 
Zendavesta,  imtil  I  have  rationally  demonstrated  that "  this 
book  "  is  an  authentic  revelation,  and  that  here  I  have  the 
veritable  words  of  God."  Now  suj^pose  Dr.  Dempster  to 
have  written  largely  to  prove  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  Mr.  C.'s  book,  and  suppose  him  to  have  written 
some  two  hundred  pages  to  prove  that  the  miracles  and 
prophecies  recorded  in  Mr.  C.'^  book  were  estabhshed  facts, 
and  that  these  miracles  and  prophecies  proved  those  teach- 
ings, of  which  they  are  the  seals,  to  be  from  that  God  in 
whose  name  Mr.  C.  wrought  the  miracles,  and  by  whose 
inspiration  he  delivered  the  prophecies ;  I  say,  suppose  I 
should  ignore  all  this,  and  speak  of  Mr.  C.'s  book  and  of 
the  doctor's  defence  of  it  as  they  have  of  the  Bible  and  of 
Watson's  Institutes,  what  would  those  gentlemen  think  of 
me  ?  Wliat  would  they  say  of  me  ?  Would  they  consider 
it  highly  creditable  to  my  intelligence  and  candor  to  ignore 
all  the  miracles  and  prophecies  recorded  iii  Mr.  C.'s  book, 


*  AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED.  143 

and  proceed  to  argue  against  it  on  the  assumption  that  it 
coutained  no  more  than  mere  assertion,  and  that,  conse- 
quently, till  evidence  is  brought  from  a  source  independent 
of  Mr.  C.'s  book,  it  is  of  no  more  authority  than  the  Koran 
or  Zeudavesta  ?  "Would  they  not  claim  that  the  fact  of  the 
passage  through  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  the  facts  of  the 
other  miracles,  deserved  at  least  a  passmg  notice  ?  Nay, 
would  they  not  claim  that  these  facts  remained  facts, 
whether  they  did  or  did  not,  whether  they  could  or  could 
not,  i)rove  the  being  of  a  God  from  the  material  universe? 
Would  they  not  insist  that  there  is  no  connection  whatever 
between  such  facts  and  the  question  whether  the  being  of 
a  God  can  bo  proved  from  the  visible  world  ?  Would  they 
not  be  likely  to  ask,  "Even  if  we  should  'prove  the  exist- 
ence of  a  God  from  the  facts  of  the  material  universe,'  how- 
would  that  prove  Mr.  C.'s  book  to  be  the  word  of  Go  i  ? 
And  even  though  we  could  not  prove,  from  the  matefial 
universe,  the  being  of  a  God  clothed  with  infinite  attributes, 
would  not  the  miracles  and  prophecies  prove  the  being  of 
the  God  in  whose  name  Mr.  C.  wrought  the  miracles,  and 
by  whose  inspiration  he  prophesied  ?  "  Other  questions 
might  be  asked,  but  these  will  suffice,  and  the  application 
is  sufficiently  obvious.  Here  it  is :  "  Whatsoever  you  would 
that  men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  unto  them,  for 
this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets."  Following  this  rule,  the 
Bible  and  Watson's  Institutes  would  never  be  represented 
as  they  arc  in  the  quotations  which  we  have  given  above. 
From  miracles  and  prophecy,  Mr.  Watson  claims  to  have 
proved  the  Scriptures  to  be  "  a  revelation  from  God."  As 
the  above  quotations  from  Watson's  reviewer  indicate  that 
Watson  has  taken  all  this  for  granted  without  even  at- 
tempting a  proof,  we  will  give  a  quotation  from  vol.  i,  p. 
237.    "  The  great  principle  of  the  English  proto-infidel, '  the 


144:  Watson's  theological  institutes 

sufficiency  of  our  natural  faculties  to  form  a  religion  for 
ourselves,  and  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  revealed  truth,' 
is,  however,  the  principle  of  all  [all  the  infidels  whose 
views  he  had  just  stated];  and  this  being  once  conceded, 
the  instances  just  -given  are  sufficiently  in  proof  that  the 
cable  is  slipped,  and  that  every  one  is  left  to  take  his  course 
wherever  the  currents  may  imjDel  his  impiloted,  uncharted^ 
and  uncompassed  bark  The  grand  princijjle  of  error 
['  the  sufficiency  of  our  natural  faculties  to  form  a  religion 
for  ourselves,  and  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  revealed 
truth '],  between  which  and  absolute  atheism  there  are  but 
a  few  steps,  has  been  largely  refuted  in  the  foregoing  pages, 
and  the  claims  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  considered  as  a 
revelation  from  God,  estabhshed  by  arguments,  the  force 
of  which  in  all  other  cases  is  felt,  and  acknowledged,  and 
acted  upon  even  by  unbelievers  themselves.  If  this  has 
been  done  satisfactorily,  the  objections  which  remain  are 
of  little  weight,  were  they  even  less  capable  of  being  re- 
pelled.'' 

We  will  simply  call  attention  to  four  particulars  in  the 
above  quotation.  First,  the  great  principle  of  infidelity, 
and  the  terrible  consequence  of  embracing  it.  This  prin- 
ciple, he  says,  "  has  been  largely  refuted  in  the  foregoing 
pages."  And  in  refuting  this  principle,  he  has  refuted  the 
great  principle  of  transcendentalism,  as  we  showed  for- 
merly. Second,  the  Scriptures  claim  to  be  a  revelation 
from  God.  Third,  this  claim,  he  says,  he  has  "established 
by  arguments,  the  force  of  which  in  all  other  cases  is  felt, 
and  acknowledged,  and  acted  upon' even  by  unbelievers 
themselves."  Fourth,  this  being  done,  "the  objections 
which  remain  are  of  little  weight,  were  they  even  less 
capable  of  being  repelled."  This  conclusion  is  exactly  in 
harmony  with  that  of  Butler,  i.  e.,  "  The  only  question 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


145 


concerning  the  truth  of  Christianity  is,  -nhether  it  be  a 
revelation."  The  arguments  by  which  he  claims  to  have 
"  estabUshed  "  this  grand  truth  cover  about  one  hundred 
and  sixty  pages,  and  are  based  upon  miracles  and  prophecy, 
for  upon  the  internal  and  collateral  evidences  he  does  not 
lay  much  stress,  at  least  not  upon  the  former.  Of  these 
miracles,  however,  Watson's  reviewer  takes  no  notice,  and, 
without  attempting  to  refute  the  arguments  based  upon 
them,  he  tells  his  readers  that  "Watson  "  has  first  to  assume 
what  he  cannot  prove,"  viz.,  the  being  of  a  God,  and  he 
asserts  this  simply  because  "Watson,  after  giving  numerous 
reasons,  cannot  see  reason  to  conclude  that  man  originated 
a  knowledge  of  the  God  of  the  Bible,  and  concludes  by 
sajing :  "  Matter  of  fact  does  not,  therefore,  support  tho 
notion  that  the  existence  of  Gk)d  is  discoverable  by  the 
unassisted  faculties  of  man  ;  and  there  is,  I  conceive,  very 
slender  reason  to  admit  the  abstract  possibility."  For  this 
he  is  represented  as  "  doing  business  on  a  fictions  capital — 
passing  what  we  know  is  not  good  coin."  "We  claim,  how- 
ever, that  he  has  established  by  irrefragable  argument 
what  Butler  declares  to  be  "  the  only  question  concerning 
the  truth  of  Christianity."  Indeed,  this  seems  to  us  so 
obvious  we  know  not  how  any  one  can  fail  to  see  it ;  for, 
to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  a  revelation  from  that  Being 
whose  natural  and  moral  attributes  are  declared  to  be  in- 
finite, is  to  prove  it  to  be  true^  unless  you  suppose  such  a 
Being  to  be  capable  of  making  a  mistake,  or  of  saying  what 
is  not  true ;  but  such  a  supposition  is,  of  course,  impos- 
sible. The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  inevitable :  to  prove  the 
Bible  to  be  a  revelation  from  God,  is  to  prove  it  to  be  "  true 
and  righteous  altogether."  And  as  its  miracles  and  proph- 
ecies afford  such  a  proofs  it  follows  that  the  Bible  is 
coiCPLETE     rrsELF,  Complete  both  as  to  its  teaching  and 


146  WATSOn's  THEOLOGICAl,  INSTITUTES 

as  to  the  evidence  which  it  affords  that  its  teachings  are  of 
God.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  us  unreasonable  in  the  very  ex- 
treme to  suppose  that  God  would  give  us  a  book  upon  the 
truth  of  which  we  are  to  rest  our  eternal  all,  and  which  we 
are  to  believe  upon  pain  of  eternal  damnation,  though  it 
does  not  contain  evidence  that  it  is  a  revelation  from  God, 
and  is,  therefore,  utterly  destitute  of  authority,  and  utterly 
unreliable.  It  is,  therefore,  good  for  just  nothing  at  all, 
unless  so  far  as  it  may  hajjpeu  to  take  our  fancy.  Such  an 
idea  is  utterly  inadmissible ;  it  cannot  be  entertained  for  a 
moment.  If  I  behoved  that  the  Bible  contained  no  evi- 
dence that  it  is  a  revelation  from  God,  how  could  I  go 
forth  and  enforce  its  teachings  upon  my  fellow  men  by  the 
sanction  of  eternal  life  and  eternal  death  ?  How  could  any 
man  do  so  ?  Nor  will  it  help  the  matter  in  the  least  to  say 
that  the  being  of  a  God  can  be  proved  from  "  the  facts  of 
the  universe,"  for,  as  I  said  before,  that  would  not  prove 
that  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God  ;  if  it  does  not  con- 
tain in  itself  evidence  that  it  is  a  revelation  from  God,  "  the 
facts  of  the  universe  "  cannot  impart  that  evidence  to  it. 
And  if  it  does  contain  evidence  that  it  is  a  revelation  from 
God,  then  its  teachings  are  as  true  as  they  are  complete,  and 
as  complete  as  they  are  true.  It  will  follow,  of  course,  that 
Watson  is  right,  transcendentalism  wrong,  and  the  con- 
troversy is  forever  decided,  by  proving  that  the  Bible  con- 
tains in  itself  evidence  that  it  is  a  revelation  from  that 
God  beside  whom  there  is  not  another;  in  other  words, 
by  proving  that  it  contains  in  itself  evidence  that  it  is 
what  it  professes  to  be.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  does  not 
contain  such  evidence,  then,  as  Watson  says,  "  the  cable  is 
slipped,  and  every  one  is  left  to  take  his  course  wherever 
the  winds  and  the  currents  may  impel  his  unpilotecJ,  un- 
charted, and  unconipassed  bark."    So  true  it  is  "  that  the 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


147 


only  question  concerning  the  trutli  of  Christianity  is,  whe- 
ther it  be  a  revelation."  Thus  we  turn  the  tables  again, 
by  showing  that  the  teachings  of  AYatson's  opponents,  not 
tliose  of  Watson,  tend  to  infidelity  ! 

The  following  sketch  on  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
though  not  originally  designed  for  this  work,  seems  to 
comprehend  all  we  Avish  to  say  here,  and  i)erhaps  all  that 
need  be  said  on  this  subject : 

As  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  I  conceive  it  consists  in  such  a  communication 
of  assistance,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  enabled  the  sacred 
writers  to  write  and  speak  ^Yith  infallible  truthfulness. 

As  to  the  extent  of  that  assistance  or  inspiration,  that 
would  vary  with  what  they  wrote  and  spoke. 

For  instance,  when,  as  historians,  they  recorded  flxcts  or 
events,  they  w^ere  so  assisted  as  to  do  so  loith  infallible 
tnithfnbiess.  When  the  facts  or  events  recorded  consisted 
simply  of  what  they  had  seen  or  heard  perhaps  years  be- 
fore, then  it  was  principally  their  memory  that  was  assisted ; 
according  to  that  promise,  "lie  [the  Holy  Spirit]  shall 
bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance  whatever  I  have  said 
unto  you."  When  they  were  called  upon  to  speak  im- 
promptu, as  they  frequently  were,  before  their  enemies,  and 
various  authorities,  then  perhaps  we  might  say  it  was  their 
judgment  jirincipally  that  was  assisted,  according  to  that 
promise,  "The  Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you  in  that  same  hour 
what  ye  ought  to  say."  When  they  wrote  and  spoke  as 
prophets,  all  wo  can  say  is,  they  were  so  assisted  as  to  an- 
nounce certain  events  which  should  take  place  long  after 
the  annoxmcement,  and  which  did  take  place  according  to 
their  annoimcement ;  as,  for  instance,  the  birth  and  acts  of 
Cyrus,  and  those  of  Jesus  Christ.  Sometimes  Jlie  sacred 
writers  recorded  events  which  had  taken  place  before  they 


148  Watson's  theological  institutes 


tliemselves  were  born  ;  for  instance,  the  history  of  the 
creation,  by  Moses.  In  this  instance,  it  is  clear  the  assist- 
ance was  not  communicated  to  the  memory,  nor  does  it 
seem  jn-oper  to  say  that  it  was  communicated  either  to  the 
judgment  or  to  the  perceptive  faculty  ;  all  that  can  be  said 
is  that  wliich  the  inspired  writers  themselves  have  said : 
they  "  wrote  and  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

"With  regard  to  the  moral  teachings  of  holy  writ,  we 
may  observe  that  the  sum  thereof  was  written  by  the  finger 
of  God  upon  two  tables  of  stone,  and  delivered  to  Moses  in 
the  presence  of  millions  of  people,  accompanied  by  the  su- 
pernatural phenomena  of  which  we  have  already  spoken. 
And  in  writing  those  moral  precepts  which  are  included, 
though  not  specified,  in  the  ten  commandments,  and  apply- 
ing them  to  all  the  purposes  of  life,  as  they  have  done,  the 
sacred  writers  had  the  infallible  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  should  be  observed,  too,  that  Jesus  Christ  himself,  wlio  is 
the  source  of  all  hght  and  truth,  teaches  us  the  nature  and 
use  of  the  ten  commandments  when  he  tells  us  that  the 
sum  is  love  to  God  and  man. 

All  the  doctrines  also  the  inspired  penmen  had  from 
God  by  direct  revelation.  For  instance,  God  made  known 
his  OAVTi  being  and  attributes  to  Moses,  to  whom  he  showed 
his  glory,  and  with  whom  he  talked  as  a  man  with  his 
friend.  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  of  the 
general  judgment,  St.  Paul  tells  us,  he  had  "  by  the  word  of 
the  Lord."  And  many  of  the  doctrines  they  had  from  the 
lips  of  Jesus  Christ  while  he  was  present  with  them  on 
earth.  And  in  recording  his  words,  as  already  stated,  they 
were  so  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to  make  the  record 
with  infayible  truthfulness.  At  other  times  they  announced 
doctrines  and  prophecies  under  the  plenary  inspiration  of 


AND  THE  BIELE  DEFENDED. 


149 


the  Holy  Ghost.  So  that  the  entire  teaching  of  holy  writ 
comes  to  us  by  direct  revelation  from  God. 

As  to  the  evidence  by  which  these  teachings  are  j^roved 
to  be  from  God,  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  there  are 
three  distinct  jjartics  occupying  three  distinct  2)ositions, 
and  each  i)arty  has  evidence  adaj^ted  to  the  position  which 
it  occupies.  The  parties  are,  first,  the  inspired  writers  to 
whom  the  revelations  were  made  ;  second,  those  who  Averc 
present  when  such  revelations  were  made,  and  witnessed 
the  phenomena  that  accompanied  them  ;  and,  third,  those 
M  ho  were  not  present,  because  living  in  a  different  locality, 
or  in  a  diftereut  age. 

The  party  insj^ired  had  .an  inward  evidence  that  was 
peculiar  and  satisfactory  to  themselves,  and  which  none 
but  God  could  give  ;  and  this  was  accompanied  and  corrob- 
orated by  outward  phenomena  of  Avhich  God  only  could 
be  the  author.  For  instance,  Moses  had  such  evidence  at 
the  burning  bush,  in  Egypt,  at  Sinai,  and  on  many  other 
occasions.  Joshua,  too,  had  similar  e\idence,^  not  only 
while  Moses  lived,  but  also  after  he  died.  See  first  chap- 
ter of  Joshua,  also  fifth  chapter  and  thirteenth  and  following 
verses.  Read  also  the  history  of  Samuel  and  others  during 
the  period  of  the  Judges,  who  were  quite  familiar  with  such 
divine  communications,  being  so  frequently  under  the  di- 
vine inflatus,  and  who  were  known  by  the  whole  nation  to 
*'  speak  the  xcord  of  the  Lokd."  Head,  too,  Isaiah  vi.  1-8. 
Also,  the  first  chapter  of  Jeremiah.  It  will  be  well,  too,  to 
study,  and  study  carefully,  the  visions  of  Ezekiel  by  the 
river  Chebar,  where,  we  are  told,  "  The  word  of  the  Lord 
came  expressly  unto  Ezekiel  the  priest,  the  son  of  Bnzi,  in 
the  land  of  the  Chaldeans  by  the  river  Chebar ;  and  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  was  there  upon  him."  See  the  first  three 
chapters  of  Ezekiel.    Read  also  the  book  of  Daniel,  par- 


150  WATSOn's  theological  ES'STITDTES 

ticularly  the  tenth  chaj^ter.  And,  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
will  suffice  to  read  the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Second  Corinthians  to  the 
ninth  verse  ;  and  the  first  chapter  of  Revelation,  particularly 
from  the  tenth  verse.  In  a  word,  they  all  had  that  pecu- 
liar inward  assurance  which  none  hut  God  could  give,  cor- 
roborated by  2:>henoniena  of  wliich  none  but  God  could  be 
the  author.  They  also,  in  many  instances,  had  evidence 
from  the  fulfilment  of  their  own  prophecies  ;  indeed,  most 
of  the  miracles  were  the  fulfilment  of  predictions  that  pre- 
ceded them.  In  addition  to  the  instances  already  given 
take  the  following  :  In  1  Samuel  xii,  16-18,  we  read  thus  : 
"  Now  therefore  stand  and  see  this  great  thing,  which  the 
Lord  will  do  before  your  eyes.  Is  it  not  wheat  harvest  to- 
day ?  I  will  call  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  send  thimder 
and  rain  ;  that  ye  may  perceive  and  see  that  your  Avicked- 
ness  is  great,  which  ye  have  done  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord, 
in  asking  you  a  king.  So  Samuel  called  unto  the  Lord  ;  and 
the  Lord  sent  thunder  and  rain  that  day :  and  all  the  people 
greatly  feared  the  Lord  and  Samuel."  The  prediction  of  Eli- 
jah and  the  long  drought  that  followed  are  well  known.  Also 
his  prayers  in  answer  to  which  the  copious  rains  descended 
at  one  time,  and  consuming  fire  at  another.  In  connection 
with  this  read  Jer.  v.  24,  x.  13,  and  xiv.  22,  and  you  will 
see  that  the  God  of  the  Bible  claims  that  he  only  has  power 
to  send  and  withhold  the  rain.  "Arc  there  any  among 
the  vanities  of  the  Gentiles  that  can  cause  rain  ?  or  can  the 
heavens  give  showers  ?  Art  not  thou  hej  O  Lord  our  God  ? 
therefore  we  will  wait  upon  thee :  for  thou  hast  made  all 
these  things.''''  Similar  instances  abound  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. The  death  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  his  wife,  the 
blindness  of  Elymas  the  sorcerer,  and  the  predictions  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  which  preceded  those  events,  are  also 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFEXDED. 


151 


well  known :  tliey  are  only  two  out  of  numerous  instances 
of  a  similar  kind  in  which  miracle  and  j^rophecy  are  con- 
nected. These  may  be  considered  specimens  of  what  Paul 
calls  "  the  signs  of  an  apostle,"  and  by  which  he  vindicates 
his  claims  to  inspiration.  "  Truly,"  he  says,  "  the  signs  of 
an  apostle  were  wrought  among  you  in  all  patience,  in 
signs  and  wonders,  and  mighty  deeds."  Any  one  who  will 
carefully  read  the  above  and  similar  scriptures,  will  see  that 
the  inspired  writers  had  abundance  of  evidence  that  God 
spake  to  and  by  them ;  such  evidence  as  none  but  God 
could  give,  and  such  as  rendered  mistake  simply  impos- 
sible." 

The  second  party  heard  the  inspired  writers  proclaim 
their  divine  and  well-attested  messages,  and  sometimes 
heard  God  himself,  and  were  eye  and  ear  witnesses  of  the 
wonderM  phenomena,  as  at  Sinai,  at  the  bajjtism  of  our 
blessed  Lord,  and  at  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  And  the  thousands  in  the  wilderness 
were  not  only  permitted  to  see  and  hear  while  Jesus  spake, 
and  the  bread  and  the  fish  increased  m  his  creative  grasp 
before  their  eyes,  but  did  also  eat  thereof,  and  were  satis- 
fied. This  party  were  also,  for  the  most  part,  acquainted 
with  the  life  and  character  of  the  jjarties  claiming  to  be  in- 
spired. They  knew  them  to  be  persons  of  good  judgment 
and  unblemished  character;  they  also  were  witnesses  of 
what  accompanied  and  followed  the  promulgation  and  re- 
ception of  Scripture  truth ;  and  in  addition  to  all  this,  they 
had,  in  common  with  all  others,  the  evidence  afforded  by 
fulfilled  prophecy. 

The  third  party  have  the  well-authenticated  facts  re- 
corded in  the  Bible,*  and  interwoven  with  the  histories  of 

*  Sec  "  Leslie's  Method  with  the  Deists,"  at  the  end  of  the  book. 


152  WATSOn's  theological  INSTmiTES 


all  the  ancient  nations,  as  given  by  their  own  historians 
and  principal  writers.  The  facts,  for  instance,  that  the 
prophets,  apostles,  and  Jesus  Christ  lived,  wrote,  spoke, 
and  acted  as  is  recorded  of  them  in  the  Bible ;  that  their 
claims  to  inspiration  were  attested  by  the  miracles  recorded, 
and  mader  the  circumstances  and  in  the  presence  of  the 
spectators  specified.  They  have  also  the  indisputable  facts, 
that  many  of  the  events  which  the  inspired  writers  de- 
clared would  take  place,  have  taken  place  precisely  as  pre- 
dicted. Now  all  these  facts  are  inseparably  connected  with 
the  doctrines  and  morals  of  the  Bible.  In  other  words, 
with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible.  To  deny  the  facts,  is 
foUy  in  the  extreme ;  and  to  admit  them,  is  to  admit  that 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible  are  the  teachings  of  the  God  of 
the  Bible.  For  these  facts  involve  the  exercise  of  attri- 
butes which  belong  only  to  God  Almighty ;  and  they  were 
exerted  to  prove  this  very  thing,  namely,  that  these  teach- 
ings are  the  teachings  of  the  God  of  the  Bible.  Mark,  I  do 
not  say  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being,  but  to 
prove  the  being  of  that  very  God  whom  the  inspired  writers 
represent  as  clothed  with  infinite  attributes,  from,  whom 
they  received  their  teachings,  and  beside  whom  they  de- 
clare there  is  not  another !  "  Hear,  O  Israel :  The  Loed 
our  God  is  one  Lord."  "  There  is  none  else  beside  him." 
"  Thou  art  God  alone." 

It  follows,  that  our  belief,  as  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  rests  iipon  numerous  and  indisputable  facts, 
and  these  facts  of  such  a  nature,  that  they  are  obviously 
the  oflTspring  of  God's  loisdom,  power,  omniscience,  good- 
ness, andi  justice.  Prophecies  demonstrate  his  omniscience ; 
miracles,  by  which  the  heavenly  bodies  and  the  earth  are 
arrested  in  their  motions,  as  when  the  sun  and  moon  are 
said  to  have  stood  still ;  miracles,  by  which  the  lights  of 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED.  153 

Leaven  are  extingixislied,  and  the  earth  wrapt  in  darkness 
at  midday  ;  miracles,  by  Avhich  the  laws  of  nature,  as  they 
are  called,  are  suspended,  thrown  aside,  or  even  reversed ; 
as  in  raising  the  dead,  dividing  the  sea,  throwing  the  stream 
of  Jordan  backward,  or  at  least  arresting  it  at  a  given 
point,  controlling  the  winds  and  the  waves  in  a  moment ; 
I  say  miracles  such  as  these,  and  others  recorded  in  Scrip- 
ture, certainly  indicate  the  exercise  of  a  power  that  con- 
trols the  universe,  and  that  power  must  be  the  power  of 
the  omnipotent  God;  his  signal  judgments  on  the  wicked, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  antediluvian  world,  and  the  overthrow 
of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  as  also  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ, 
are  striking  proofs  of  his  justice  ;  while  the  end  obviously 
aimed  at  in  the  work  of  creation  and  redemption,  together 
with  the  marvellous  economy  of  grace  and  providence, 
Avhich  includes  miracles  and  prophecy,  alike  j^rove  his 
Avisdom  and  goodness.  Thus  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  power,  omniscience,  justice,  wisdom,  and  good- 
ness of  God,  are  established  with  all  the  certainty  of  facts, 
which  facts  are  as  indisputable  as  our  very  being.  Such  is 
the  book  which  we  claim  to  be  complete  i)i  itself,  and  such 
are  some  of  our  reasons  for  so  doing.  Yet  we  are  sent  to 
the  masses  of  gross  matter  with  which  we  are  surrounded 
to  prove  from  thence  the  being  and  attributes  of  an  Al- 
mighty Spirit,  and  are  confidently  assured  that,  if  we  can- 
not do  that,  "  there  can  be  no  proof  that  the  Bible  is  of 
God."  Do  the  philosophers  who  teach  thus  really  know 
that  this  is  the  triumphant  utterance  of  almost  every  young 
sceptic  and  old  infidel  in  the  land  ?  Do  they  know  that 
the  assumed  sufficiency  of  the  book  of  nature,  of  the  human 
reason,  of  the  human  conscience,  together  with  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Bible  does  not  contain  evidence  of  "  the  ex- 
istence of  a  God,"  does  not  contain  evidence  that  "  it  is  a 
7* 


154 


"watson's  theological  institutes 


revelation  from  God,"  are  the  reasons  assigned  by  such 
young  sceptics  and  old  infidels,  for  absenting  themselves 
from  public  wofshij),  crying  out  priestcraft,  and  rejecting 
the  whole  system  of  Christianity?  Do  they  know  that 
such  teachings  are  increasing  the  number  of  such  sceptics 
continually  ?  Do  they  know  that  between  such  teachings 
and  infidelity  there  really  is  no  ground  upon  which  a  man 
can  stand  ?  I  say  do  they  know  all  this  ?  If  they  do  not, 
they  are  seriously  defective  in  knowledge,  especially  as 
public  teachers.  And  if  they  do,  their  i^rofessed  fidelity  to 
the  Christian  system  is  more  than  questionable. 

But  there  is  another  way  in  which  any  man  may  prove, 
not  only  that  there  is  a  God,  but  also,  that  the  Bible  is  a 
revelation  from  God.  The  way  is  very  easy,  and  very  sun- 
pie,  so  much  so,  that  it  is  within  the  reach  of  all  who  can 
hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  for  this  way  is  only  known  by 
a  revelation  from  God,  even  the  God  of  the  Bible,  who 
makes  it  known  in  these  words  :  "  Call  unto  me,  and  I  will 
answer  theq,  and  show  thee  great  and  mighty  things,  which 
thou  knowest  not."  "  The  Lord  is  nigh  unto  all  them  that 
call  ujjon  him,  to  all  that  call  upon  him  in  truth."  "  If  any 
man  Avill  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine  whether 
it  be  of  God."  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved."  "  All  things  whatsoever  ye  shall 
ask  in  prayer,  believing,  ye  sliall  receive."  "  I  say  unto 
you,  what  things  soever  ye  desire  when  ye  pray,  believe 
that  ye  receive  tlicm^  and  ye  shall  have  them?''  Now  any 
man  may  test  the  truth  of  this  doctrine,  even  though  he 
never  saw  the  material  world,  though  he  had  been  born 
blind !  And,  remember,  to  establish  the  truth  of  this  doc- 
trine, is  to  establish  the  truth  of  every  doctrine  in  the 
Bible.  This  statement  is  so  evidently  true  that  we  think  it 
entirely  unnecessary  to  stop  here  to  prove  it.    And  it 


AJSTD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


155 


woiild  be  still  more  a  Avork  of  sui^ererogation  to  stop  to 
I)rove  that  prayers  offered  to  the  God  of  the  Bible,  by 
the  children  of  men,  have  been  answered.  Concerning  the 
last  of  the  promises,  quoted  above,  that  holy  woman, 
Mrs.  tiester  Ann  Rodgers,  records  the  following  testi- 
mony: "I  have  proved  it  in  a  thousand  instances,  and 
never  knew  it  to  tail  in  one."  This  is  but  one  out  of  mil- 
lions of  testimonies  to  the  truth  of  this  blessed  doctrine, 
that  the  God  of  the  Bible  hears  and  answers  the  prayers 
of  the  children  of  men  when  they  offer  them  as  the  Bible 
teaches.  And  to  show  that  the  most  ignorant  and  help- 
less of  the  poor  fallen  children  of  Adam  may  comply  with 
that  teaching,  and,  consequently,  do  that  very  thing  Avhich 
Watson's  opponents  say  cannot  be  done,  I  wUl  give  a  single 
instance,  which  I  had  from  an  eminent  minister  of  the  Gos- 
pel, who  some  years  ago  went  to  his  reward.  He  said  he 
was  visiting  in  a  certain  hospital  where  he  found  a  poor 
woman  so  ignorant  that  he  despaired  of  reaching  her  judg- 
ment with  the  truth  he  desired  to  communicate,  she  being 
entirely  txnacquainted  with  Bible  teaching,  and  quite  un- 
educated. He,  however,  adopted  this  method:  he  obtain- 
ed her  promise  that  she  would  olfer  to  the  God  of  the  Bible 
the  following  prayer,  repeating  it  frequently  tUl  he  should 
return  again :  "  O  God,  show  me  my  heart,  for  Christ's 
sake.  Amen."  He  left  her  repeating  this  prayer,  and  on 
returning  a  short  time  after,  found  her  deeply  penitent, 
exclaiming,  "  O  sir,  God  has  showed  me  my  heart,  and  it 
is  so  bad  !  What  will  I  do  ?  "  These  arc  the  words,  as 
near  as  I  can  remember.  He  then  gave  her  this  prayer  : 
"  O  God,  pardon  my  sin,  and  give  me  a  new  heart,  for 
Chi-ist's  sake."  He  left  her  repealing  this  prayer,  and  on 
returning  some  time  after  he  found  her  rejoicuig,  and  re- 
joiced with  her,  while  she  declared  that  God  had  both  par- 


156  Watson's  theological  iNSTmiTES 


doned  her  sin  and  given  her  a  new  heart.  Oh,  how  much 
better  it  was  to  adopt  this  method  than  to  leave  this  poor 
woman  to  "  the  facts  of  the  material  universe,  and  the  in- 
tuitions of  her  mind,"  to  prove  the  being  of  a  God,  giving 
as  the  reason  that,  "  if  there  be  no  prior  proof  of  God's 
existence  out  of  the  Bible,  there  can  be  no  proof  that  the 
Bible  is  of  God."  My  dear  sir,  here  is  proof  without  the 
slightest  reference  to  anything  out  of  the  Bible.  This  poor 
woman  obeys  one  single  command  of  the  Bible,  by  praying 
to  the  God  of  the  Bible,  and  she  receives  a  direct  answer 
to  her  prayer,  an  unmistakable  answer,  and  such  as  none 
but  God  Almighty  could  give ;  and  that  answer  consisted 
in  her  receiving  the  very  blessings  which  she  requested. 
Now  if  those  philosophers,  so  called,  who  reject  the  Bible, 
should  affect  to  despise  this  proof  because  of  its  simplicity, 
surely  they  will  not  do  so  who  profess  to  believe  and  teach 
the  Bible;  seeing  they  cannot  slight  this  kind  of  proof 
without  slighting  both  the  Bible  and  its  author.  The  fol- 
lowing is  one  of  the  instances  in  which  the  Bible  tells  us 
this  kind  of  proof  was  adopted,  and  adopted  with  glorious 
success:  "And  Elijah  came  unto  all  the  people,  and  said, 
How  long  halt  ye  between  two  opinions  ?  If  the  Loed  be 
God,  foUow  him  :  but  if  Baal,  then  follow  him.  And  the 
-  people  answered  him  not  a  word.  Then  said  Elijah  unto  the 
people,  I,  even  I  only,  remain  a  prophet  of  the  Lord  ;  but 
Baal's  prophets  are  four  hundred  and  fifty  men.  Let  them, 
therefore,  give  us  two  bullocks;  and  let  them  choose  one 
bullock  for  themselves,  and  cut  it  in  pieces,  -and  lay  it  on 
wood,  and  put  no  fire  under :  and  I  will  dress  the  other 
bullock,  and  lay  it  on  wood,  and  put  no  fire  under.  And 
call  ye  on  the  name  of  your  gods,  and  I  wUl  call  on  the  name 
of  the  Loed  :  and  the  God  that  answereth  by  fire,  let  him 
be  God.    And  all  the  people  answered  and  said,  It  is  well 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


157 


spoken."  Prayer  was  offered  to  Baal  by  his  worshippers 
from  morning  till  noon,  and  continued  even  "  till  the  time 
of  the  offering  of  the  evening  sacrifice,"  but  "  there  was 
neither  voice,  nor  any  to  answer,  nor  any  that  regarded." 
Then  Elijah  having  "built  an  altar  in  the  name  of  the 
LoED,"  drew  near  and  said,  "  Hear  me,  0  Loed,  hear  me, 
tliat  this  people  may  know  that  thou  art  the  Loed  God, 
and  that  thou  hast  turned  their  heart  back  again.  Then 
the  fire  of  the  Loed  fell,  and  consumed  the  burnt-sacrifice, 
and  the  wood,  and  the  stones,  and  the  dust,  and  licked  up 
the  water  that  was  in  the  trench.  And  when  all  the  peo- 
ple saw  it  they  fell  on  their  faces ;  and  they  said,  The  Lord, 
he  is  the  God  ;  the  Loed,  he  is  the  God."  Now  we  simply 
call  attention  to  the  following  particulars :  First,  the  God 
of  the  Bible  is  rejected,  and  Baal,  that  is,  a  dumb  idol,  is 
substituted  in  his  place,  and  almost  an  entire  nation  bow 
down  to,  and  worship  him,  according  to  the  "  intuitions  of 
their  pure  reason,"  and  in  defiance  of  "the  facts  of  the 
material  universe,"  with  which  they  were  surrounded : 
here  are  ignorance  and  indolatry  in  some  of  their  worst 
forms,  and  that  in  the  land  of  Israel !  Second,  it  is  pro- 
posed that,  to  find  out  the  true  God,  jirayer  shall  be  offer- 
ed :  and  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  "  the  God  that 
answereth  by  fire  "  shall  be  recognized  and  worshipped  as 
the  true  God.  To  this  "  all  the  peo^^le  answered  and  said. 
It  is  well  spoken."  This  kind  of  test  had  not  occurred  to 
the  people,  but  as  soon  as  it  is  presented  to  the  mind, 
accompanied  of  course  by  the  supernatural  light  and  power 
that  always  accompany  revelations  from  God,  their  com- 
mon sense  at  once  approves  of  it ;  there  was  not  one  tran- 
scendeutalist,  as  far  as  we  know,  found  among  them ;  not 
one  to  say  :  "  If  w^e  owe  our  knowledge  of  the  existence 
of  God  to  revelation  alone,  then  it  is  impossible  to  prove, 


158  watson's  theological  es^stitutes 


logically,  the  existence  of  God;"  not  one  to  say:  "If  we 
owe  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God  to  revelation 
alone,  then  we  cannot,  by  human  reason,  prove  that  the 
Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God."  Such  conclusions  have 
no  countenance,  on  this  occasion,  either  from  God,  his 
l)roi)het,  or  the  people :  they  all  agree,  that  a  direct  and 
unmistakable  answer  to  jDrayer,  will  be  proof  sufficient, 
without  any  "  prior  proof  of  God's  existence  out  of  the 
Bible."  And  w^ell  they  might,  for  it  was  an  indisputable 
fact,  that  despite  all  such  proofs,  be  they  great  or  small, 
conclusive  or  inconclusive,  the  people  were  ignorant  of  the 
true  God,  so  ignorant  that  they  were  gross  idolatej-s.  The 
sun,  beautiful  as  is  that  heaA'enly  body,  was  so  far  from 
demonstrating  to  that  people  the  being  and  attributes  of 
the  true  God,  that  they  worshipped  the  sun  itself!  Third, 
this  proof,  as  might  be  expected,  answers  the  end  pro- 
posed ;  for  as  soon  as  Elijah's  prayer  was  answered,  "all 
the  people  fell  on  their  faces  ;  and  they  said.  The  Lord,  he 
is  the  God ;  the  Lojid,  he  is  the  God."  Fourth,  this  God, 
who  "  is  plenteous  in  mercy,"  confirms  the  faith  of  this  de- 
luded, but  now  believing  people,  by  another  gracious  and 
wonderful  answer  to  prayer,  offered  by  the  same  man — the 
man  who  more  than  three  years  before  had  publicly  said, 
"  As  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  liveth,  before  whom  I  stand, 
there  shall  not  be  dew  nor  rain  these  years,  but  according 
to  my  word,"  now  calls  again  upon  this  prayer-answering 
God,  "  The  Lord  God  of  Israel,"  who  answered  the  former 
prayer  by  fire,  but  who  answers  this  prayer  by  sending  a 
copious  rain  upon  the  thirsty  land ;  and  thus  blessing  the 
l^eople  whose  departure  from  the  true  God  had  caused  the 
long  drought,  but  who  have  now  returned  to  him,  even  to 
the  God  who  answereth  prayer.  Fifth,  it  is  evident  that 
tlie  God  who  answered  these  prayers  has  complete  control 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


159 


of  mind  and  matter — has  absolute  control  over  all  worlds, 
the  invisible  as  vi^ell  as  the  visible ;  for  if  wicked  spirits, 
who  are  02)posed  to  all  good,  could  have  sent  either  tire  or 
rain,  they  Avould  certainly  have  done  so,  and  thus  have 
frustrated  the  designs  of  God  and  his  prophet.  But  they 
could  do  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  They  could  do 
just  nothing  at  all  beyond  what  the  God  of  EUjah  saw  fit 
to  permit.  If  he  says  there  shall  be  no  rain,  there  can  be 
none.  If  he  says  the  fire  shall  not  fall  upon  that  idolatrous 
altar,  all  the  devils  in  hell  cannot  communicate  a  single 
spark  to  it,  much  as  they  have  to  do  with  the  fiery  regions. 
If  he  commands  the  fire  and  the  rain  to  fall,  they  come 
down,  and  there  is  no  power  that  can  possibly  prevent  it. 
The  people  saw  this ;  they  could  not  but  see  it ;  heuce  they 
cry  out,  "  The  Lord,  He  is  the  God  ;  the  Lord,  He  is  the 
God."  Thus,  what  God  demonstrated  by  miracles  in  the  land 
of  Egypt,  that  same  he  demonstrated  in  the  land  of  Israel 
by  answering  prayer,  even  that  he  is  God,  and  beside  him 
there  is  not  another  !  So  clear  it  is  that  revelation  is  com- 
plete in  itself — carries  its  own  evidence  with  it.  God,  by 
revelation,  says  to  man,  "  Call  upon  me  and  I  will  answer." 
Man  calls,  and  the  direct  answer  is  received.  And  the 
answer  is  such  that  it  proves  these  two  points,  first,  that  it 
comes  from  the  God  to  wiiom  the  prayer  was  oficred ; 
second,  that  this  God  lias  absolute  control  over  all  worlds, 
beings,  and  laws,  at  least  as  fixr  as  our  knowledge  extends. 
And  these  two  points  being  proved,  it  follows,  of  course, 
that  this  God  is  worthy  of  our  confidence  and  trust,  and 
he  only,  arid  that  the  revelation  which  taught  us  to  pray, 
nmst  be  from  him  who  answered  our  prayers.  Thus,  again, 
we  see,  that  revelation  imparts  perfect  teaching,  and  per- 
fect evidence  that  its  teaching  is  the  teaching  of  God  Al- 
mighty.  And  these  two  particulars,  it  is  evident,  compre- 


160  -watson's  theological  institutes 


hend  everything ;  these  heing  true  there,  is  absolutely 
nothing  wanting.  It  is  strictly  true  that,  "  The  law  of  the 
Lord  is  perfect :  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making 
wise  the  simple." 

The  following  quotation  from  Watson's  sermon  on  "  The 
Excellency  of  the  Knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus"  will,  we 
think,  be  iu  place  here :  "  Christianity  appeals  to  experi- 
ence. It  declares  that  certain  supernatural  results  shall 
follow  upon  the  use  of  particular  means.  The  weary  and 
heavy  laden  who  come  to  Christ  shaU  find  rest  unto  their 
souls.  Peace  and  joy  are  consequent  upon  beheving  iu 
him..  The  heart  is  purified  by  faith.  The  prayer  of  faith 
shall  be  answered.  The  way  of  practical  holiness  is  a  way 
of  pleasantness  and  peace.  What,  then,  is  the  fact  ?  Let 
the  appeal  be  made  to  sincere  Christians  in  every  age  and 
place.  Have  they  used  the  remedy  in  vain?  Does  the 
gospel  describe  a  state  of  heart  which  they  have  never 
found  ?  Has  their  prayer  never  been  answered  ?  Do  wis- 
dom's ways  answer  the  description  given  of  them  ?  Speak- 
ing of  his  Father,  our  Lord  said  :  "If  any  man  will  do  his 
will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God, 
or  whether  I  speak  of  myself."  By  prophecy,  miracles,  and 
the  unanimous  testimony  of  experienced  Christians,  the 
gospel  is  confirmed  to  us  as  the  sure  word  of  God.  O 
blessed  knowledge,  so  assured  !    Tossed  on  a  sea  of  doubt, 

'  Here  is  firm  footing,  here  is  solid  rock. 
Tliis  can  sustain  us  :  all  is  sea  beside.'  " 

He  had  previously  spoken  of  miracles  and  proi:)hecy,  in 
proof  of  revelation ;  here  he  adduces  experience  for  the 
same  purpose,  and  one  of  the  particulars  included  in  tlie 
Christian  exi)erieuce  is  the  ansvver  to  prayer  offered  to  the 
God  of  the  Bible  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.    That  tlft 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


161 


miracles  of  the  Bible,  the  fulfilled  prophecies  of  the  Bible, 
and  the  fulfilled  promises  of  the  Bible,  m  answer  to  prayer, 
prove  the  truth  of  revelation,  is  Watson's  position.  And, 
with  liim,  we  have  attempted  to  defend  this  position,  and 
our  defence  is  before  the  reader.  Dr.  Dempster,  however, 
as  well  as  Watson's  reviewer,  maintains  that  "  if  there  be 
no  prior  proof  of  God's  existence  out  of  the  Bible,  there 
can  be  no  proof  that  the  Bible  is  of  God." 


162 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAI.  INSTITUTES 


CHAPTER  V. 

As  this  is  a  defence  of  "  Watson's  Theological  Institutes," 
and  as  the  design  of  Dr.  Dempstei-  is  one  with  that  of  Mr. 
Cocker,  it  seems  necessary  that  we  should  quote  the  doctor 
more  at  length,  both  in  justice  to  him  and  in  justice  to 
Mr.  Watson. 

The  doctor  says,  "  Deductions  fi-om  the  mind's  own  first 
princij^les  constitute  d  2>riori  reasoning."  These  j^rinciples 
he  variously  denominates,  at  dilFerent  times,  "  mental  intui- 
tions," "primary  truths,"  "primary  judgments,"  "intui- 
tive truths,"  "  first  truths,"  "  verities,"  "  axioms."  And 
concerning  them  he  reasons  thus :  "  As  the  rejection  of 
these  is  the  sole  ground  on  which  the  theistic  d  priori 
argument  is  pronounced  impossible,  the  necessity  of  these 
must  restore  that  argument  to  its  primary  place  in  this  dis- 
cussion. How  else  can  proof  of  the  Divine  existence  be 
furnished  ?  Is  this  proof  ever  attempted  in  revelation  ? 
If  not,  Avhere  and  when  has  it  ever  been  attempted  ?  Is  it 
susceptible  of  proof,  or  is  it  not  ?  Is  it  merely  a  fact  that 
God's  existence  is  not  proved  in  revelation  ?  or  is  it  a  neces- 
sity that  it  is  not  ?  If  it  cannot  be  proved  without  revela- 
tion, evidence  will  appear  invincible  that  it  cannot  by  reve- 
lation ;  and  if  it  cannot  be  proved  by  revelation  or  without 
revelation,  it  cannot  be  proved  at  all.    This  is  exactly  the 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


163 


conclusion  reached  by  Kant  and  bis  followers,  by  Hamilton 
and  his  school,  by  Manscl  and  his  admirers,  and,  we  regret 
to  add,  by  Mr.  Watson  and  that  entire  class  of  divines  who 
deny  the  possibility  of  natural  Theology.  What  would 
be  the  response  of  those  learned  rejectors  of  natural  reli- 
gion, should  it  be  shown  that  revelation  is  unsusceptible  of 
proof  of  its  Divine  Author  P  "  *  *  *  *  "  Our  position  is, 
that  an  authoritative  revelation  cannot  be  authenticated 
until  prior  evidence  has  proved  its  author."  *  *  *  "  There 
is  either  proof  of  him  without  revelation,  or  there  can  be 
no  proof  of  revelation."  ("N.  W.  C.  A,,"  Dec.  17,  1862,  ar- 
ticle ISTo.  2.) 

As  the  doctor's  first  article,  which  will  be  found  in  the 
issue  of  the  previous  week,  is  little  more  than  a  rehearsal  of 
what  Mr.  Cocker  had  said,  we  had  concluded  not  to  quote 
from  it,  but  we  now  see  reasons  for  giving  the  following 
quotation  from  it :  one  reason  is,  he  is  pleased  to  construct 
certain  arguments  for  his  opponents,  which  they  beg  to  say 
are  not  theirs,  and  would  much  prefer  to  construct  their 
own  arguments. 

After  speaking  of  what  he  calls  "the  sensational 
scheme,"  "  the  materialistic  theory,"  "  that  of  innate 
ideas,"  and  of  that  which  declares  "  that  there  are  specific 
forms  into  which  thought  develoj^s- itself,  as  the  acorn  into 
the  oak ; "  and,  after  speaking  of  certain  "  profound  di- 
vines "  who  "  deny  the  possibility  of  natural  tueology  ; " 
and  after  earnestly  deprecating  the  terrible  and  "  far-reach- 
ing consequences  "  of  all  this,  he  thus  proceeds  : 

"  Then  arises  the  startling  inquiry,  if  no  utterance  of 
him  comes  from  these  sources  ['  the  mind's  own  first  prin- 
ciples '  and  the  material  world],  can  there  be  any  from  rev- 
elation ?  Is  it  promptly  answered  '  that  the  miracles  of 
revelation  prove  the  infinity  of  then-  author  ?  '    But  if  ten 


164  watson's  theological  instittjtes 


thousand  divine  manifestations  in  nature  fail  to  indicate 
him,  how  can  the  few  that  signahze  the  Scriptures  manifest 
him?  Has  revelation  ever  attemi)ted  to  prove  a  God? 
Where  there  is  the  least  appearance  of  such  attempt,  is  it 
not  by  an  appeal  to.  nature  ?  Is  it  not  thus  based  on  the 
foundation  of  natural  theology  ?  Was  not  nature  equally 
significant  prior  to  all  such  appeals  ?  But,  if  it  had  no 
such  significancy,  how  could  the  Bible  truthfully  appeal  to 
it  for  such  pm-pose  ?  How  can  a  mere  declaration  prove 
his  existence  ?  Not  imless  something  of  hhn  was  previ- 
ously known.  If  profoundly  ignorant  of  their  author,  how 
can  miracles  assure  us  of  the  divinity  of  their  author  ? 
How  could  they  deUneate  his  character  ?  Is  the  reply, 
that  they  were  benignant  in  their  nature  ?  Be  it  so.  But 
how  many  deceivers  have  showed  kindness  in  order  to 
inveigle  their  victims  ?  If  this  stupendous  creation  and  our 
wondrous  constitution  of  mind  are  utterly  silent  of  their 
great  Creator,  how  can  mere  words,  uttered  by,  we  know 
not  whom,  reveal  him  ?  How  can  a  few  isolated  miracles 
do  this  if  all  that  have  conspired  to  construct  the  creation 
fail  to  do  it  ?  » 

The  reader  has  now  a  faithful  exhibit  of  the  doctor's 
position  in  this  controversy,  and  of  the  arguments  by  which 
he  attempts  to  estabhsh  that  position.  Of  what  the  doctor 
calls  "  the  mind's  own  first  principles,"  and  the  "  deduc- 
tions "  therefrom,  which  he  says  "  constitute  a  priori  reason- 
ing," we  have  already  sjioken  at  some  length  in  a  former 
i:)art  of  this  defence,  and,  consequently,  have  nothing  to 
say  here  on  these  points.  That  the  ■  Bible  is  complete  in 
itself,  in  evidence  as  well  as  teaching,  has  already  been 
shown,  so  that  what  the  doctor  says  to  the  contrary,  in  the 
above  quotations,  needs  no  further  notice,  though,  even  on 
these  points,  we  may  take  occasion  to  notice  the  weakness 
of  some  of  his  remarks. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


1G5 


Copying  after  the  example  of  Mr.  Cocker,  it  would 
seem,  the  doctor  connects  Mr.  "Watson  with  what  he  calls 
"  the  sensational  scheme,"  the  "  materialistic  theory,"  and 
includes  him  amongst  certain  "profound  divines,"  and 
"learned  rejectors  of  natural  religion,"  whom  he  represents 
as  teaching  that  the  existence  of  a  God  "  cannot  be  jiroved 
by  revelation  or  without  revelation,"  and  therefore  not  at 
all.  "This,"  he  adds,  "is  exactly  the  conclusion  reached 
by  Kant  and  his  followers,  by  Hamilton  and  his  school,  by 
Mansel  and  his  admirei>s,  and  we  regret  to  add,  by  Mr. 
Watson  and  that  entire  class  of  divines  who  deny  the  pos- 
sibility of  NATUEAL  theoloQxj  ! "  Mr,  Cocker  represents 
"Watson  as  teaching  what  "  must  inevitably  land  in  pure 
materialism,"  and  Dr.  Dempster  represents  him  as  teach- 
ing that  "  it,"  God's  existence,  "  cannot  be  proved  at  all ; " 
so  that,  according  to  the  doctor,  his  teaching  must  land  in 
atheism,  while,  according  to  Mr.  Cocker,  it  "  must  inevitably 
land  in  materialism."  To  find  evidence  of  these  dreadful 
charges  the  latter  refers  us  to  "  the  chapters  on  the  pre- 
sumptive evidence,"  *  *  *  *  "  on  the  moral  law,"  and  "  on 
the  existence  of  God."  But  the  latter  is  pleased  to  give  us 
his  simple  assertion  to  that  effect,  without  quoting  so  much 
as  one  syllable  from  "Watson's  writings  in  proof  of  his  asser- 
tion !  As  our  reply  to  Mr.  Cocker  is  a  reply  to  the  doctor 
on  this  point,  we  have  only  to  add  that  it  seems  to  us  very 
wrong  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  make  the 
candidates  for  her  ministry  study  "  "Watson's  Theological 
Institutes  "  for  four  years,  and,  at  the  same  time,  by  her 
periodicals  and  theological  teachers  represent  them  as 
above  !  "We  submit,  with  all  deference,  whether  she  should 
not  either  exclude  "  The  Institutes  "  from  "  the  course  of 
study,"  or  effect  some  change  in  her  editorial  and  theologi- 
cal departments.   The  doctor  g9es  on:  "Is  it  promptly 


1G6 


watson's  theological  institutes 


answered, '  that  the  miracles  of  revelation  prove  the  infinity 
of  their  Author?  How  can  a  few  isolated  miracles  do 
this,  if  all  that  have  conspired  to  construct  the  creation  fall 
*  to  do  it  ?  "  I  will  tell  you,  doctor.  "  All  that  have  con- 
spired to  construct  -the  creation,"  do  not  and  cannot  prove 
that  Jloses  and  the  other  writers  of  the  Scrijjtures  %cere 
teachers  sent  from  God ;  but  mikacles  do  this  ;  '  even 
thougli  they  were  few ;  but  they  are  not  few,  they  aee 
VERY  MANT  !  AND  VERY  GREAT ! — SO  much  SO  as  to  demon- 
strate that  their  Author  has  abselute  control  of  the  heav- 
ens above,  and  of  the  earth  beneath,  and  of  all  that  therein 
is ;  so  far  as  our  observation  extends,  beyond  which,  of 
course,  we  know  nothing,  save  by  testimony  ;  and  that  tes- 
timony we  have  from  the  writers  of  the  Scriptures,  whose 
claims  are  established  by  miracles,  prophecy,  and  ansioers 
to  prayer ,  The  testimony  asserts  the  being  of  an  eternal 
God,  clothed  with  infinite  attributes :  and  the  phenomena 
by  which  the  truthfulness  of  that  testimony  is  sealed  to  us, 
demonstrate  their  Author  to  be  uncontrolled  and  uncon- 
trollable !  So  that,  if  the  testimony  be  not  true,  that  un- 
controlled and  UNCONTROLLABLE  Being  has  set  his  seal  to 
a  lie  !  And  if  it  be  true,  then  it  is  certain  that  the  Bible  is 
complete  in  itself,  both  as  to  its  teaching  and  as  to  the  evi- 
dence by  which  that  teaching  is  proved  to  be  from  the 
True  God,  besides  whom  there  is  not  another  !  In  a  word, 
the  teaching,  and  the  phenomena  by  which  that  teaching  is 
sealed,  evidently  origiiiate  in  the  same  JBeiyig,  and  the 
phenomena  prove  that  Being  to  he  what  the  teaching 
SAYS  He  is  !  Thus  the  teaching  and  the  phenomena  of  the 
Bible  make  the'  Bible  a  perfect  book.  Nothing  can  be 
added  to  it ;  let  nothing  be  taken  from  it.  Neither  mir- 
acles, nor  the  facts  of  the  surrounding  worlds,  taken  alone, 
can  prove  the  being  of  the  God  of  the  Bible,  simjjly  because 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


167 


the  limited  cannot  prove  the  unlimited,  because  the  finite 
cannot  prove  the  infinite,  because  nothing  can  impart  what 
it  does  not  possess  !  But  miracles  and  testimony  such  as 
the  Bible  presents,  and  in  the  connection  in  which  it  pre- 
sents them,  do  most  conclusively  prove  the  being  of  that 
very  God.  It  is  in  this  connection  "  that  the  miracles  of 
revehition  prove  the  infinity  of  their  Author."  It  is  for 
want  of  attending  to  this  connection,  it  is  because  the  doc- 
tor does  not  observe  this  connection,  that  he  asks  the  ques- 
tion under  consideration;  and  it  is  for  the  same  reason  that 
he  asks,  "  How  can  a  mere  declaration  prove  his  exist- 
ence ?  "  No,  doctor ;  "  a  mere  declaration  "  proves  noth- 
ing at  all,  much  less  the  being  of  a  God,  unless,  indeed,  that 
in  some  instances,  "  a  mere  declai'ation,"  or  assertion,  proves 
the  folly  of  its  author !  But  the  declarations  that  are 
l^roved  to  be  the  declarations  of  God  Almighty,  as  are  the  ■ 
declarations  of  the  Bible,  prove  something !  Such  declara- 
tions are  infinitely  reliable,  they  are  "  true  and  righteous 
altogether,"  for  "  God  cannot  lie." 

"  Has  revelation  ever  attempted  to  prove  a  God  ?  "  con- 
tinues the  doctor.  "  Is  it  merely  a  fact  that  God's  existence 
is  not  proved  in  revelation  ?  or,  is  it  a  necessity  that  it  is 
not."  With  all  deference  to  the  doctor  we  deny  both  the 
'■'■facf''  and  the  '■'■necessity''''  here  alleged.  The  sacred 
writers  not  only  prove  the  being  of  a  God,  but,  what  is  far 
more,  they  prove  the  being  of  That  God  whose  infinite 
perfection  they  set  forth  in  strains  the  most  glowing  and 
rapturous,  and  in  the  use  of  terms  the  most  sublime  and 
expressive,  the  most  elevated  and  glorious,  and  which, 
though  they  express  so  much,  suggest  infinitely  more,  leav- 
ing the  mind  rapt  in  adoring  wonder,  and  lost  in  the  Infi- 
nite !  And  the  proofs  which  the  sacred  writers  give  us  of 
the  being  of  this  God  are  as  extensive  as  are  the  miracles, 


168         'watson's  theological  instittjtes 

the  prophecies,  and  the  answers  to  prayer  which  they  re- 
cord, and  these  run  through  the  whole  book  from  Genesis 
to  Revelations.  It  is  thus  that  "  the  Bible  shows  its  trust- 
worthiness." But  the  doctor  inquires,  "  What  would  be 
the  resi^onse  of  t^iose  learned  rejectors  of  natural  religion, 
should  it  be  shown  that  revelation  is  unsusceptible  of  proof 
without  prior  proof  of  its  di\'ine  Author?"  And  again, 
"  How  can  a  mere  declaration  prove  his  existence  ?  "  And 
yet  again,  "  How  can  mere  words,  uttered  by  we  know  not 
whom,  reveal  him  ?  "  To  such  inquiries,  doctor,  there  can 
be  but  one  response,  namely  this :  "a  mere  declaration," 
and  "  mere  words  uttered  by  we  know  not  whom,"  prove 
just  nothing  at  all,  unless,  as  we  said  before,  they  prove  the 
folly  of  those  who  uttered  them.  But  to  represent  the 
Bible  as  containing  mere  assertions  without  a  known  author 
is  marvellous  in  the  extreme,  especially  when  this  is  done 
by  a  doctor  of  divinity,  a  theological  tutor  !  If  this  be  the 
character  of  the  Bible  it  is  utterly  unworthy  of  confidence, 
and  the  confidence  hitherto  placed  in  it  has  been  entirely 
misplaced.  Nor  do  we  wonder  that  the  doctor,  while 
these  are  his  views,  should  seek  another  book  in  which  to 
place  confidence.  For  our  part,  did  we  entertain  these 
views  of  the  Bible,  we  would  at  once  turn  to  the  book  of 
nature,  and  take  our  texts  from  thence,  or  cease  preaching 
altogether ;  for  we  certainly  would  not  preach  any  more 
from  the  Bible,  while  entertaining  these  views.  And  even 
though  we  should  admit  that  the  book  of  nature  teaches  all 
the  doctor  claims,  and  much  more ;  what  then  ?  Would 
it  follow  that  a  book  containing  "  mere  words,  uttered  by 
we  know  not  -nliom,"  is  the  Book  of  God  ?  We  certainly 
can  see  no  such  consequence  ;  nor  do  we  see  any  connection 
whatever  between  such  premise  and  such  conclusion.  If  the 
heavenly  bodies  were  a  thousand  times  more  numerous  and 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


169 


glorious  than  they  are,  and  the  dance  of  the  spheres  ten 
thousand  times  more  enrapturing  than  at  present ;  and  the 
mental  and  moral  faculties  of  man  a  thousand  times  better 
than  they  are,  still,  even  that  would  not  prove  that  the  un- 
known authors  of  certain  assertions  were  teachers  sent  from 
God.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  book  of  nature  were  a 
thousand  times  less  expressive  than  it  is,  still  teachings 
sealed,  as  are  those  of  the  sacred  writers,  with  miracles^ 
prophecy^  and  answers  to  prayer^  would  be  as  obviously  the 
teachings  of  that  God  whose  they  claim  to  be,  as  they  are 
at  present.  It  follows  that  the  assertion  that  "  if  there  be 
no  prior  proof  of  God's  existence  out  of  the  Bible^  there  can 
be  no  proof  that  the  Bible  is  of  God,"  is  utterly  without 
foundation,  and  indicates  a  strange  want  of  discrimination. 

But  the  doctor  assumes  that  those  who  dilFer  from  him 
rest  their  cause  upon  the  benevolence  of  "  a  few  isolated 
miracles,"  and  then  proceeds  to  invalidate  his  own  assump- 
tion thus  :  "  But  how  many  deceivers  have  showed  kind- 
ness in  order  to  inveigle  their  victims  ?  "  That  many  of  the 
miracles  recorded  in  Scriptui-e,  especially  those  wrought  by 
Jesus  Christ,  are  characterized  by  godlike  benevolence,  is 
quite  certain  ;  but  the  doctor  has  no  right  to  assume  that 
it  is  upon  their  benevolence  alone  that  his  opponents  rest 
their  cause.  Those  miracles  which  indicate  the  just  dis- 
pleasure of  their  author,  as  well  as  his  absolute  sovereignty, 
afford  their  quota  of  evidence  as  well  as  those  which 
are  characterized  by  benevolence.  Hence  Mr.  Watson 
says  :  "  The  flood,  being  so  awful  and  marked  a  declaration 
of  God's  anger  against  the  violation  of  the  la-n^  of  this 
primitive  religion,  would  give  great  force  and  sanction  to 
it,  as  a  religious  system,  in  the  minds  of  Noah's  immediate 
descendants."  And  then,  after  specifying  the  principles  of 
that  system,  and  making  some  further  remarks,  he  adds : 


170  watson's  theological  institutes 


"  The  destruction  of  the  wicked  by  the  flood  put  the  seal 
of  heaven  upon  the  religious  system  transmitted  from 
Adam ;  and  under  the  force  of  this  divine  and  unequivocal 
attestation  of  its  truth,  the  sons  and  descendants  of  Noah 
went  forth  into  their  diflerent  settlements,  bearing  for  ages 
the  deep  impression  of  its  sanctity  and  authority." 

That  the  deluge  and  the  prophetic  waniings  which  jire- 
ceded  it,  and  which  were  fulfilled  by  it,  must  be  attributed 
to  the  Omniscient  and  Sovereign  Ruler  of  heaven  and  earth 
is  so  evident,  we  think,  as  to  render  an  attempt  to  pi-ove  it 
unnecessary  and  superfluous  ;  nor  is  it  less  evident  that  this 
terrible  judgment  was  characterized  by  the  justice  as  well 
as  by  the  power  and  omniscience  of  its  author.  Nor  will 
the  doctor  contend,  we  think,  that  the  "  kindness  "  mani- 
fested by  its  author  was  manifested  simply  "  in  order  to 
inveigle  "  his  "  victims,"  for  the  kindness  shown  to  Noah 
and  his  family  was  certainly  sincere  in  its  nature,  and  happy 
in  its  results.  And,  as  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  alas !  the 
terrible  judgment,  though  just,  but  too  plainly  indicated 
that  God's  "  mercy  was  clean  gone,"  and  that  he  had  "  for- 
gotten to  be  gracious."  The  opening  of  the  windows  of 
heaven,  the  breaking  up  of  the  great  deep,  the  universal 
deluge,  and  the  universal  destruction  of  an  apostate  world, 
'certainly  leave  little  room  for  philosophers  to  speculate 
upon  the  kindness  herein  shown.  We  think  it  would  be 
much  Aviser  to  imitate  the  thoughtful  and  pious  example  of 
Mr.  Watson,  as  indicated  in  tiie  quotations  given  above,  or 
to  exclaim  with  Paul,  "  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  ^he  living  God."  The  reader  can  easily  extend 
these  remarks  to  othei-  and  similar  displays  of  the  divine 
justice  and  power,  in  the  miraculous  judgments  with  which 
apostate  men  have  been  visited  from  time  to  time,  and 
which  are  recorded  in  holy  writ.    Such  as  the  destruction 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


171 


of  Soclom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  other  cities  of  the  plain, 
and  the  equally  miraculous  destruction  of  Korah,  Dathan, 
and  Abiram,  when  "  the  earth  opened  her  mouth  and  s\yal- 
lowed  them  up,"  and  the  not  less  miraculous  destruc- 
tion of  the  fourteen  thousand  and  seven  hundred  by 
"  the  plague,"  on  the  same  occasion.  These  and  similar 
miracles  aftbrd  conclusive  and  fearful  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  the  Scriptures.  And  there  certainly  is  no  room  to  con- 
clude that  their  author  designed  to  deceive  by  the  kindness 
therein  manifested  !  And,  although  the  miracles  of  Jesus 
Christ  are  altogether  characterized  by  the  godlike  benig- 
nity of  their  author,  it  would  be  both  absurd  and  blasphe- 
mous to  suspect  for  a  moment  that  the  author  of  these 
miracles  designed  by  this  manifested  kindness  to  deceive 
and  inveigle  the  poor,  helpless,  and  miserable  children  of 
men  !  Certainly  he  who  could  say  to  the  winds  and  to  the 
sea,  "  Peace,  be  still,  and  there  was  a  great  calm  ; "  he 
who  by  a  word  gave  sight  to  the  blind,  hearing  to  the  deaf, 
utterance  to  the  dumb,  and  made  the  lame  to  leap  with  all 
the  joyful  activities  of  the  village  youth  in  their  evening 
sports  ;  he  who  by  his  creative  power  supplied  the  hungry 
thousands  with  abundance  of  food  ;  he  who  could  control 
the  fish,  as  well  as  the  waves,  of  the  sea,  and  cause  one  of 
them  to  wait  upon  him  with  the  exact  sum  of  money  de- 
manded for  tribute,  and  that  at  the  moment  required,  with 
all  the  promptness  of  a  faithful  servant ;  he  who,  with  or 
without  a  word,  "  healed  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all 
manner  of  disease  among  the  people,"  cleansed  the  leper 
and  raised  the  dead ;  he,  I  say,  certainly  had  no  need  to 
deceive  and  inveigle  the  wretched  and  helpless  children  of 
men  either  to  obtain  their  favor  or  to  do  them  an  injury ! 
The  very  thought  is  so  intolerable  I  will  not,  I  cannot, 
longer  dwell  upon  it !    The  fact  is,  the  more  I  investigate 


173  watson's  theological  institutes 

the  subject  the  more  I  am  convinced  that  the  supernatural 
phenomena  of  the  Scriptures  demonstrate  their  author  to 
be  what  the  Scriptures  say  he  is.  Every  attempt  to  estab- 
hsh  a  contrary  conclusion  will,  I  am  convinced,  terminate 
in  absurdity  or  WQrse.  I  say  supernatural  phenomena, 
for  all  the  phenomena  of  which  we  speak  are  purely  super- 
natural. To  say  nothing  further  of  miracle  and  prophecy, 
let  us  for  a  moment  reflect  on  answers  to  prayer.  At  this 
moment,  perhaps,  millions  of  human  spirits,  scattered  all 
ov-er  the  earth,  olfer  prayer  to  God  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  perhaps  for  the  most  part  these  prayers  are  the 
simple  desires  of  the  soul,  only  expressed  by  the  falling 
tear  or  the  unutterable  sigh,  yet  all  these  prayers  are 
answered !  And  this  is  being  done  every  moment,  for 
these  praying  ones  "  cry  day  and  night,"  they  "  pray  without 
ceasing,"  and  because  their  prayers  are  answered  they  "  re- 
joice evermore,  and  in  everything  give  thanks."  Now  to 
me  it  is  as  clear  as  a  sunbeam  that  the  Being  who  reads 
and  understands  all  these  praying  hearts,  and  returns  an 
answer  to  each  prayer,  according  to  the  desire  of  the  heart, 
which  desire  was  only  expressed  by  a  sigh  or  a  tear,  or 
perhaps  by  neither  ;  the  Being  who  reads  all  the  grateful 
feelings,  as  well  as  the  j^rayerful  desires,  and  hears  and 
accepts  all  the  thanksgivings  of  the  heart ;  I  say  to  me  it  is 
as  clear  as  a  sunbeam  that  this  Being  must  be  omniscient, 
omnipresent^  and  omnipotent.  In  a  word,  he  must  be  all 
that  the  Bible  says  he  is.  For  to  read  all  these  hearts,  and 
answer  all  these  prayers,  he  mmt  not  only  be  p)'esent  to 
HEAR,  SEE,  and  help,  hut  he  must  have  power  a/ic?  wisdom 
to  control  all  worlds,  powers,  and  contingencies.  For 
it  were  to  no  purpose  that  he  searched  their  hearts,  and 
heard  their  prayers,  if  there  were  axxy  jyowcrs,  laws,  or  con- 
tingencies  that  could  prevent  his  returnmg  an  answer.  So 


AJS'D  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


173 


sure,  then,  as  the  God  of  the  Bible  hears  prayer,  and  re- 
turns an  answer  "  to  all  that  call  upon  him  in  ti'uth,"  so 
sure  all  who  hear  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  can  prove  to 
tlieir  utmost  satisfaction  the  being  of  the  God  of  the  Bible  ; 
can  prove  "  that  ho  is  a  rcAvarder  of  them  that  diligently 
seek  him  ; "  and  aU  this  without  first  proving  his  being 
from  the  material  world,  all  this  mdependent  of  any  such 
previous  proof ;  even  the  man  that  was  born  blind,  aud, 
therefore,  never  saw  the  material  world,  can  in  this  way 
prove  the  being  of  the  God  of  the  Bible.  It  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  in  his  case,  at  least,  "  faith  cometh-by  hearing 
the  word  of  God."  But,  according  to  Dr.  Dempster,  such 
persons  could  not  have  faith  at  all,  for  it  certainly  could  not 
come  by  seeing !  and  the  doctor  says  it  cannot  come  by 
hearing ! 

"We  now  return  to  Mr.  C.  who  closes  his  review  of 
"Watson's  Institutes  thus :  "  The  science  of  natural  theology 
is  recognized  by  the  master  mind  of  Paul :  '  That  which 
may  be  known  of  God  is  manifested  in  their  hearts  ;  God 
himself  having  shown  it  nnto  them,  for  his  eternal  power 
and  godhead,  though  they  be  invisible,  yet  are  they  seen 
ever  since  the  world  was  made,  being  understood  by  his 
works,  that  they  might  have  no  excuse.'  "  (Romans  i,  19, 
20.    Conybeare  and  Howson's  translation). 

Just  here  we  ask  two  questions — first,  does  the  above 
text  establish  the  reviewer's  position  ?  Second,  is  it  op- 
posed to  "Watson's  position  ?  To  both  these  questions  we" 
answer,  no.  And  if  not,  the  text  is  quoted  to  no  purpose. 
The  reader,  we  doubt  not,  will  see  the  correctness  of  our 
negative  to  these  questions  when  we  present  again,  as  we 
have  done  before,  the  position  of  "Watson,  and  that  of  his 
reviewer ;  for  it  is  necessary  that  the  reader  should  have 
these  positions  clearly  in  view  in  connection  with  the  above 
text  and  the  claims  of  the  reviewer. 


174  Watson's  theological  ixstitutes 

Watson's  position  is  simply  tliis :  he  claims  that  man, 
originally,  had  the  knowledge  of  God's  being  and  attributes 
by  direct  revelation  from  God  himself.  See  his  definition 
of  a  revelation.  He  claims  that  the  human  family  w  ere 
never  without  the  'knowledge  thus  received.  He  also 
claims  that  when  any  of  the  human  fomily  lost  that  knowl- 
edge they  never  obtained  it  again  without  supernatural  as- 
sistance. And  after  giving  numerous  reasons  for  these 
claims,  he  thus  concludes :  "  Matter  of  fact  does  not  there- 
fore support  the  notion  that  the  existence  of  God  is  dis- 
coverable by  the  unassisted  faculties  of  man  :  and  there  is, 
I  conceive,  very  slender  reason  to  admit  the  abstract  pos- 
sibility." He  then  adds  :  "  The  abundant  rational  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  God,  which  may  now  be  so  easily  col- 
lected, and  which  is  so  convincing,  is  therefore  no  jiroof 
that  without  instruction  from  heaven  the  human  mind 
would  ever  have  made  the  discovery."  Xow  we  ask,  do 
the  words  of  Paul,  quoted  above,  contradict  what  Watson 
says  in  the  quotations  here  given  ?  Do  these  words  of 
Paul  prove  that  "the  unassisted  faculties"  of  fallen  man 
can  derive  a  knowledge  of  the  God  of  the  Bible  from  the 
material  world  ?  Do  they  prove  that  "  the  human  mind  " 
without  supernatural  assistance  could  do  this  ?  Does 
"  matter  of  fact  suj^ijort  this  notion  ?  "  Is  there  more  than 
"  slender  reason  to  admit  the  abstract  possibility  "  of  this  ? 
And  though  man  "  can  now  collect  abundant  rational "  and 
"  convincing  evidence,"  does  it  follow  that  he  could  have 
done  so  by  his  jiatural  2)0icers  Avithout  supernatural  assist- 
ance f  If  the  text  under  consideration  proves  the  affirma- 
tive of  these  questions,  then  the  evidence,  or  reason,  for 
"  admitting  the  abstract  possibility  "  of  this  is  not  as  "  slen- 
der "  as  Watson  supposed  it  to  be.  That  is  all !  But  if 
the  text  does  not  prove  the  affiii-mative  of  these  questions, 


AND  THE  I5n3LE  DEFENDED. 


175 


then  this  last  attempt  to  criminate  Watson  proves  as  un- 
successful as  all  the  preceding.  When  the  reviewer  shall 
show  that  it  does  establish  the  affirmative  of  these  questions, 
then,  and  not  till  then,  will  he  have  shown  that  Watson  is 
mistaken;  though  it  certainly  would  not  follow  tliat  his 
teachings,  for  this  simple  reason,  "  must  inevitably  land  in 
pure  materialism,"  much  less  would  it  follow  that  the  re- 
viewer's position  is  right.  Ilence  the  necessity  of  inquir- 
ing, not  only  whether  the  text  is  opposed  to  Watson's  po- 
sition^  but  also  whether  it  supports  the  reviewer's  posi- 
tion, which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  as  to  what 
man  is,  or  may  be,  graciously  ;  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion as  to  what  man  knows,  or  may  know,  by  supeenat- 
UKAL  ASSISTANCE,  for,  as  wc  havc  shoAvn  in  a  former  part 
of  this  defence,  there  can  be  no  dispute  with  Watson  on 
these  points.  The  question  is  as  to  what  man  is  and  knows, 
naturally,  necessarily,  and  universally,  what  he  is  "  consti- 
tuted by  the  great  Architect  of  his  mental  being,"  what  he 
is,  and  kiiows,  after  and  despite  the  fall,  independent  of  the 
(jracious  or  snpernatural  help.  The  reviewer  says  :  "  In- 
stead, then,  of  our  knowledge  of  God  resting  upon  revela- 
tion alone,  we  regard  the  idea  of  God  as  a  phenomenon  of 
the  universal  human  intcUigence.  It  is  in  all  minds  in 
which  reason  is  in  any  considerable  degree  developed,  and 
is  there  as  a  necessary  truth."  In  sujiport  of  this  view  he 
quotes  the  following  words  of  McCosh  :  "  The  idea  of 
God,  the  belief  m  God,  may  be  justly  represented  as  native 
to  man."  Nor  is  this  all,  for  it  is  claimed  that  "  we  imme- 
diately apprehend  the  moral  quality  of  actions.  The  mind 
intuitively  apprehends  them  as  right  or  Avrong,  and  spon- 
taneously approves  or  condemns  them."  And  "  this  dis- 
tuiction  in  the  quahty  of  moral  actions  is  felt  to  be  independ- 
ent of  the  mind  which  perceives  it  and  of  any  mutable 


176 


Watson's  tueological  institutes 


condition  of  things.  Good  and  evil,  right  and  wrong,  are 
immutable.  Tlie  distinction  between  them  must  be  the 
same  everywhere,  at  all  times,  and  to  all  beings — to  God, 
to  angels,  and  to  men.  It  is  as  impossible  to  conceive  that 
there  are  intelligences  to  whom  falsehood  can  appear  a 
virtue,  and  justice  a  vice,  as  that  there  are  intelligences  to 
whom  two  and  two  equal  five,  or  to  whom  the  properties 
of  the  triangle  can  be  more  or  less  than  they  are  to  us. 
Accompanying  this  perception  of  the  irumutable  distinction 
between  virtue  and  vice,  we  have  the  consciousness  of  its 
being  our  duty  to  avoid  the  one  and  perform  the  other. 
We  feel  ujion  us  an  obligation  which  is  imperative.  AVe 
have  also  an  abiding  conviction  that  moral  good  is  re- 
icardable,  and  that  vice  merits  punisliment.  And,  final- 
ly, we  have  a  conscious  apprehension  of  a  future  retribio- 
tionP 

As  we  quoted  much  more  of  this  kind  formerly,  this 
will  sufiice  for  our  present  puri)ose.  This  is  a  specimen 
of  what  the  reviewer  calls  "  the  science  of  natural  theolo- 
gy," and  which  he  says  "  is  recognized  by  the  master  mind 
of  Paul."  The  amount  is,  every  child  of  man,  in  every  age 
and  country,  without  a  single  exceptiotv,  has  a  knowledge 
of  God^  of  moral  good  and  evil,  and  of  a  future  retribu- 
tion. And  this  knowledge  is  as  natural,  and  as  inevitable, 
as  is  orcr  knoioledge  of  obvious  and  unmistakable  iiumbers! 
Every  man  has  the  "  abiding  conviction  "  of  all  this !  And 
we  are  confidently  assured  that  all  this  is  fully  supj)orted 
by  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  verses  of  the  first  chapter 
of  Romans ;  though  the  apostle,  in  the  following  verses, 
speaks  of  certain  "  fools  "  who  "  changed  the  glory  of  the 
uncorruptible  God  into  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible 
man,  and  to  bii-ds,  and  to  fourfooted  beasts,  and  creej^ing 
things."    And  he  even  tells  us  that  they  '^changed  the 


ASD  THE  BICLE  DEFENDED. 


177 


truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worshipped  and  serv  ed  the 
creatnre  rather  than  the  Creator."  I  do  not  see  that 
these  "  fools "  are  any  better  than  that  other  "  fool " 
Avho,  according  to  the  psalmist,  "  said  in  his  heart  that 
there  is  no  God  : "  nor  are  they  much  better  who,  when 
they  "  kill "  God's  people,  "  think  that  they  do  God  ser- 
vice." Watson's  reviewer,  however,  finds  no  such  people 
in  this  or  in  any  other  age  ;  every  individual  of  the  human 
race,  accordmg  to  his  showing,  is  almost  equal  to  an  angel, 
if  not  entirely  so  !  "We  still  believe,  however,  that  the 
sacred  writers  have  not  misrepresented  the  children  of  men, 
and  so  long  as  we  believe  this  we  cannot  possibly  beheve 
the  above  and  similar  teachings  of  the  reviewer:  for  certain 
it  is  that  the  i/a'^iKos  uK^pcoTros,  the  natural  man,  as  described 
by  the  sacred  writers,  is  the  very  reverse  of  the  man  de- 
scribed by  the  reviewer,  as  we  have  shown  in  a  former  part 
of  this  defence,  and  this  showing  we  will  support  in  due 
time  by  the  facts  of  human  history.  In  the  mean  time,  it  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  while  these  teachers  of  natural  the- 
ology represent  the  natural  man  as  being  almost,  if  not  en- 
tirely, on  a  level  with  the  angels,  they,  nevertheless,  confi- 
dently assert  that  this  same  man  cannot  discover  God  in  his 
own  word,  not,  at  least,  till  he  first  proves  his  being  and 
attributes  from  the  facts  of  the  material  universe.  The  fact 
is,  according  to  the  showing  of  Watson's  reviewer,  the  nat- 
ural man  is  a  very  wise  man  ;  while,  according  to  the  show- 
ing of  the  sacred  writers,  he  is  a  "  fool,"  and  in  support  of 
this  painful  conclusion  they  adduce  the  most  terrible  facts ; 
these  facts,  however,  are  all  ignored,  and,  impliedly  at  least, 
denied  by  Watson's  opponents. 

Although  it  is  quite  suflScient  for  our  purpose  to  have 
shown,  as  we  trust  we  have,  that  the  text  in  question 
neither  contradicts  the  teaching  of  Watson  nor  confirms 
s* 


178  WATSON'S  THEOLOGICAL  mSTITUTES 


that  of  his  reviewer,  yet  we  will  endeavor  to  show  what 
the  text  does  teach. 

Observe,  then,  the  apostle  is  not  speaking  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Gentiles  at  the  time  he  wrote  the  passage  under 
consideration,  but  gf  their  ignorance  at  that  time,  and  for 
a  long  time  previous.  So  ignorant  were  they  that  they 
substituted  tl^p  creature  for  the  Creator,  and  worshipped 
the  former  instead  of  the  latter.  Nor  did  they  choose  the 
most  noble  creatures.  But,  having  worshipped  "  an  image 
made  like  to  corruptible  man,"  they  finally  worship  "  birds, 
and  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things" — epTreroji/; 
"  that  is,"  say  Bloomfield  and  others,  "  reptiles  of  every 
kind,  not  only  serpents,  but  crocodiles  and  fishes."  Such 
were  some  of  the  creatures  which  these  blind,  stupid,  idol- 
atrous Gentiles  substituted  for  the  living  God.  This  last 
kind  of  idolatry  mentioned  was  practised  more  especially 
in  Egypt ;  and  this  shows  us  that  the  apostle  is  here  taking 
a  view  of  the  whole  Gentile  world,  at  that  and  every  pre- 
vious period  of  its  apostasy. 

But  there  was  a  time  "  when  they  knew  God," — a 
time  when  "  that  which  may  be  known  of  God  "  was  ac- 
tually known  in  the  Gentile  world.  But  how  was  this 
made  "manifest  to  them"  originally?  The  apostle  an- 
swers :  "  God  hath  showed  it  unto  them."  How  did  he 
show  it  unto  them  ?  "  By  the  light,"  says  Mr.  "Wesley  on 
the  place,  "  which  enlightens  every  man  that  cometli  into 
the  world."  Observe,  the  knoAvlcdgo  of  God,  according  to 
our  apostle,  was  originally  from  God  himself.  "  God  hath 
showed  it  unto  them."  And  it  came,  not  in  the  natural 
order,  but  in  the  supernatural  order ;  it  came  through 
Jesus  Christ,  who  "  is  the  true  light  which  lighteth  every 
man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  So  far  all  is  clear,  and  so 
far  natural  theology  has  plainly  no  place  in  the  teachings 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


179 


of  the  ajiostle.  But  this  knowledge  of  God  ■which  the 
Gentile  -world  once  had,  and  which  they  obtained  in  the 
way  here  specified,  they  lost ;  and  the  ajDOstle  tells  us  how 
they  lost  it.  "  When  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him 
not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful,  but  became  vain  in  their 
imaginations,  and  their  foolish  heart  was  darkened.  Pro- 
fessing themselves  to  be  o-o<^ot,"  that  is,  philosophers,  as 
such  men  still  call  themselves,  "they  became  fools."  *  *  * 
"  And  even  as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their 
knowledge,  God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind 
[margin :  a  mind  void  of  judgment],  to  do  those  things 
which  are  not  convenient,  being  filled  with  all  unrighteous- 
ness." Intellectually  and  morally,  all  was  wrong.  They 
were  "void  of  judgment,"  "without  understanding," 
"  without  natural  affection,"  and  "  filled  with  all  unright- 
eousness." Emptied  of  all  that  is  good,  and  filled  with  all 
that  is  bad,  they  were  more  vile  than  the  reptiles  which 
they  worshipped  !  Good  God,  what  a  picture !  And  as 
though  his  inspiration  were  not  a  sufficient  guarantee  for 
its  truthfulness,  the  apostle  adduces  facts  as  indispv^table 
as  they  are  shocking.  Yet  of  these  very  same  degraded 
creatures  "Watson's  reviewer  gives  us  a  picture  so  lovely 
that  the  best  man  on  earth  need  not  be  ashamed  of  it ! 
And  he  "  can  ill  conceal "  his  "  regrets  because  Watson 
degrades  the  reason !  "  My  dear  sir,  Watson  never  had 
the  ability,  even  if  he  had  the  disposition,  to  give  a  more 
degrading  picture  of  fallen  man  than  that  which  Paul  gives 
us  in  the  above  and  other  passages  which  we  have  quoted. 
So  that  if  there  is  any  cause  for  these  regrets,  it  is  Paul, 
not  Watson,  that  must  bear  the  blame.  nd,  even  sup- 
pose neither  Watson  nor  Paul  had  ever  written  a  line  on 
the  subject,  what  then  ?  Still  Ave  have  matter  of  fact 
staring  us  in  the  face !  Nor  will  our  regrets  alter  these 
facts  in  the  least. 


180  watson's  theological  institutes 


But,  for  this  ignorance,  and  all  the  other  things  here 
specified,  the  apostle  says,  "  they  are  -without  excuse,"  not 
only  because  God  revealed  himself  to  man  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  "  sjaake  to  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,"  and 
"  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,"  but, 
also,  because  "  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation 
of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  god- 
head." To  this  and  the  preceding  verse  I  find  different 
critics  give  different  renderings,  a{  least  to  some  of  the 
■words  -which  we  will  notice.  And  this  arises,  doubtless, 
from,  the  fact  that  these  sentences  are  differently  construct- 
ed in  different  Greek  Testaments.  In  verse  19,  some  trans- 
late "  to  them,"  some  "  in  them,"  some  "  among  them," 
and  some  "  in  tlieir  hearts."  "  'Ev  avTois,  in  them,  says 
Olshausen,  "  refers  to  the  internal  nature  of  the  knowledge 
of  God."  The  same  writer  says :  "  The  expressions  yvoxns, 
or  eTTtyvdJcris  tov  Qeov,  Icnoidedge  of  God,  denote,  however, 
in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  that  absolute  knowl- 
edge of  God  which  is  conveyed  to  man  by  means  of  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  Christ ;  from  which  we  may  assume 
that  the  form  to  yyuxrrov  tov  ©eov  was  purposely  chosen  by 
the  apostle,  in  order  to  designate  that  lower  degree  of 
acquaintance  with  God,  which  was  given  to  men  on  the 
footing  of  the  Gentiles,  and  which  was  only  gradually  ob- 
scured by  sin."  In  the  20th  verse,  the  Avords,  which  are 
differently  rendered,  are  ttoitj/x  and  Of.icrrq'i.  This  last  word 
is  translated  godhead  in  the  common  version,  but  Bengel, 
Doddridge,  Olshausen,  and,  I  think,  most  critics,  render 
this  word  divinity ;  for  in  Col.  ii,  9,  the  word  translated 
godhead  is  different,  being  6iOTyfTo%.  Doddridge  observes 
that  Augustine  "  nicely  distinguishes  "  between  these  words, 
and  seems  to  approve  of  the  distinction  made  by  that 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


181 


father.  Olshausen  translates,  his  eternal  power  and  divin- 
ity, and  says,  "  The  '  eternal  power '  is  very  definite  and 
easy  to  understand. "  *  •*  *  *  "  On  the  other  hand,  the 
expression  ^eio-n??,  is  both  striking  and  obscure,  since  ©eou 
is  necessarily  supj^lied.  But  doubtless  the  apostle,  by  this 
■word,  as  above,  by  choosing  yvtaa-Tov,  intended  to  mark 
the  incompleteness  of  their  knowledge."  Bengel,  after  de- 
fending the  above  translation  of  the  word  theiotes,  says,  the 
invisible  things  of  God  would  certainly  become  visible  at 
the  creation,  if  ever ;  "  and  then,  after  some  further  remarks, 
adds :  "  So  that  the  understanding  of  the  fathers  from  the 
creation  of  the  world  may  condemn  the  apostasy  of  the 
Gentiles." 

Dr.  Bloomficld,  in  his  Greek  Testament  with  English 
notes,  translates  the  words  rots  TroL-qixaai  voou/xem,  "being 
comprehended  by  the  things  which  he  hath  created  and 
ordered,"  and  adds,  "  for  we  may  extend  ttoitj/x,  with  Kypke, 
to  the  operations  of  God's  providence  as  well  as  to  crea- 
tion." I  do  not  see,  however,  where  the  doctor  gets  the 
word  created,  for  certainly  the  word  eKTia-ev  is  riot  here  in 
any  of  its  forms.  As  to  the  word  ttolyi^,  in  its  different 
forms  it  has  very  many  different  shades  of  meaning.  For 
instance,  in  Matt,  xii,  33,  its  meaning,  as  given  in  Green- 
field's Greek  Lexicon,  is,  "  to  bring  to  pass,  cause  to  take 
place,  do,  accomplish,"  &c.  Understanding  the  words  thus, 
the  apostle's  meaning  would  be :  His  eternal  power  and  di- 
vinity are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  tilings 
iohich  he  has  brought  to  pass,  accom,2)Ushed,  caused  to  take 
place.  This  would  comprehend  the  whole  work  of  Provi- 
dence, including  miracles,  the  fulfilment  of  jJi'ophccies, 
threatenings,  promises,  and  answers  to  prayer.  And  this 
he  certainly  has  been  accomplishing  and  bringing  to  pass 
"  from  the  creation  of  the  world."    And  this  agrees  perfect- 


182  Watson's  theological  institutes 


ly  with  what  our  apostle  says  elsewhere,  when  he  specifies 
some  of  "the  things"  comprehended  in  the  term  under 
consideratioiT  For  instance,  when  preaching  at  Lystra,  he 
says,  "  We  also  are  men  of  like  passions  with  you,  and 
jDreach  imto  you,  that  ye  should  turn  from  these  vanities 
imto  the  living  God,  which  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and 
the  sea,  and  all  things  that  are  therem  ;  who  in  times  past 
sutFered  all  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways.  Neverthe- 
less he  left  not  himself  without  witness,  in  that  he  did 
good,  and  gave  us  rain  from  heaven,  and  fruitful  seasons, 
filling  our  hearts  with  food  and  gladness."  Such  are  some 
of  "  the  things  "  which  are  God's  witnesses^  and  which  left 
the  heathen  "  without  excuse,"  even  when  "  He  sulfered 
all  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways."  Nor  were  these 
and  similar  gracious  providences  God's  only  witnesses 
among  the  heathen,  for  he  wrought  his  miracles  and  won- 
ders in  all  the  ancient  Geulile  nations — not  only  "  m  the 
land  of  Ham,"  hut  in  the  midst  of  the  ancient  Assyrians 
and  Chaldeans,  especially  in  Babylon  and  Nineveh,  and,  in 
short,  in  all  the  ancient  nations,  whether  antediluvian  or 
l)ostdiluvian.  Nor  was  this  all,  for  he  taught  them  his 
worship  also.  Hence  we  find  the  jDractice  of  offering  sacri- 
fice existing  in  all-those  ancient  nations,  yea,  and  of  making 
formal  prayer  to  God;  and  this  knowledge  they  could  not 
jjossibly  derive  from  tlic  works  of  either  creation  or  provi- 
dence, but  must  have  had  it  directly  from  God  himself. 
And  this,  the  word  of  God  assures  us,  was  the  fact.  When 
Abraham  first  "  sojourned  in  Gerar,"  he  tells  us  he 
"  thought  surely  the  fear  of  God  is  not  in  this  place,"  but 
he  was  mistaken.  We  are  told  "  God  came  to  Abimclech 
in  a  dream  by  night,  and  said  to  him,  Behold,  thou  art  but 
a  dead  man,  for  tlie  woman  wliich  thou  hast  taken;  for  she 
is  a  man's  wife."  ....  "  Now,  therefore,  restore  the  man 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


183 


his  wife ;  for  he  is  a  jirophet,  and  he  shall  tray  for  thee, 
and  tliou  shalt  live :  and  if  thon  restore  her  not,  know  thou 
that  thou  shalt  surely  die,  thou  and  all  that  are  thine." 
...."So  Abraham  jn-ayed  unto  God:  and  God  healed 
Abinielech,  and  his  wife  and  his  maid  servants."  Here  let  it 
bfe  noticed,  that  this  king  receives  instruction  from  the  lips 
of  the  Most  High  on  the  subject  of  prater,  and  on  the 
other  points  specified  in  this  history,  that  the  ^rhole  comes 
as  a  law  accompanied  by  its  appropriate  sanctions,  that  the 
king  converses  with  God,  calls  him  by  his  peculiar  name 
Jehovah,  appeals  to  him  as  the  searcher  of  hearts,  and 
receives  this  answer  in  reply  :  "  I  know  that  thou  didst  this 
in  the  integrity  of  thy  heart ; "  and,  finally,  he  gives  evi- 
dence that  he  is  acquainted  with  this  God,  and  that  he  is 
familiar  with  such  communications  from  him.  (Genesis  xx.) 
AVc  find,  too,  that  Job  and  his  friends  received  direct  in- 
st)-uction  from  the  Lord  on  the  subject  of  prayer^  and  on 
many  other  subjects.  "Then  the  Lord  answered  Job  out 
of  the  whirlwind,  and  said,"  &c.  "  And  it  was  so,  that  after 
tlie  Lord  had  spoken  these  words  unto  Job,  the  Lord  said 
to  Eliphaz  the  Temanite,  ]\Iy  Avrath  is  kindled  against  thee, 
and  against  thy  two  friends  :  for  ye  have  not  spoken  of  me 
the  thing  that  is  right  as  my  servant  Job  hath.  Therefore 
take  unto  you  now  seven  bullocks  and  seven  rams,  and  go 
to  my  servant  Job,  and  ofter  \\\)  for  yourselves  a  burnt  of- 
fering ;  and  my  servant  Job  shall  pray  for  you :  for  him 
wUl  I  accept ;  lest  I  deal  Avith  you  after  your  folly."  Here 
these  men  receive  instruction  directly  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Lord  on  the  two  great  subjects,  sacrifice  and  jvaycr. 
Other  quotations  might  be  given,  but  these  will  suffice  to 
show  that  God  did  not  leave  the  ancient  nations  of  the  earth 
to  derive  a  knowledge  of  his  being  and  worship  from  the 
material  universe,  that  instruction  by  direct  revelation  was 


184  watson's  theological  institutes 

not  confined  to  Abraham  and  his  posterity,  that  the  advo- 
cates of  natural  theology  have  no  right  to  assume  that  the 
human  race  was  ever  destitute  of  instruction  by  direct 
revelation  from  God.  And  we  think  it  is  highfy  presum- 
able, were  there  no  other  evidence,  that  the  revelations  and 
supernatural  phenomena  recorded  in  the  scriptures  which 
we  have  quoted,  and  in  others  which  might  be  quoted,  are 
included  by  the  apostle  in  "the  things"  which  he  declares 
to  be  God's  witnesses,  and  which,  in  the  scripture  under 
consideration,  he  says  left  the  Gentiles  "■without  excuse" 
for  their  idolatry.  If  this  be  not  the  case,  then  the  term 
■troajix,  or  TTotij/xao-t,  in  which  he  comprehends  "  the  things  " 
of  which  he  speaks,  must  only  mean  the  material  universe, 
the  works  of  creation.  But  in  that  case  he  would  leave  out 
the  principal  witnesses,  i,  e.,  all  the  miracles,  fulfilled  proph- 
ecy, fulfilled  threatenings,  and  answers  to  prayer,  and  all 
those  gracious  providences  which  he  elsewhere  declares  to 
be  witnesses,  and  which  we  know  God  claims  to  be  hia 
witnesses,  among  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  among  the  Jews. 
Moreover,  if  by  "the  things"  which  Jeft  the  idolatrous 
Gentiles  "  without  excuse,"  the  apostle  meant  created 
things,  why  did  he  not  use  the  word  appropriate  in  that 
case,  as  he  has  done  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse  when 
speaking  of  "the  creation"?  There  he  uses  the  word 
KT«reo)s,  here  the  word  iroi-qixacn.  It  is  perfectly  true  that 
"  the  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,"  and  so  it  is  written. 
As  these  shining  worlds  sweep  through  the  fields  of  space 
all  around  us,  they  "  declare  the  glory  "  of  that  God,  that 
very  God,  made  /cnow>7  to  us  by  revelation :  that  is  far  more 
than  to  say,  "  the  heavens  prove  the  being  of  a  First  Cause ; " 
a  Gentile  philosojiher  might  say  that  much,  though,  as  Ave 
shall  show,  those  philosophers  were  very  slow  to  learn  even 
that  much  :  they  talked,  it  is  true,  freely  enough  about  an 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


185 


eternal  power,  but  they  recognized  that  power  as  belong- 
ing to  matter,  and  as  being  too  strong  even  for  the  gods ; 
and  both  the  matter  and  its  power  they  declared  to  be 
eternal.  But  without  a  revelation  no  man  ever  said,  no 
man  ever  could  have  said,  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory 
of  ELOHiii,"  for  without  a  revelation  that  name  never  had 
been  known  !  Hence  this  scripture  is  so  far  from  proving 
what  is  claimed  by  Watson's  opponents,  that  it  proves  just 
the  reverse  !  It  proves  indisputably,  that  this  is  the  utterance 
of  one  of  those  to  Avhom  the  Great  First  Cause  has  revealed 
himself  by  Name,  and  that  Name  is  Elohim,  is  Jehovah, 
and  the  Name  itself  speaks  volumes  !  Moreover,  the  author 
of  this  utterance  speaks  of  "  the  law  of  Jehovah,"  which  he 
declares  to  be  "  perfect,"  and  which  also  is  a  revelation  from 
this  same  Lord  God,  and  could  not  possibly  have  been 
known  but  by  revelation.  Seeing,  then,  that  "the  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  Elohim"  to  none  but  those  who  have 
an  authenticated  revelation  from  Elohim,  it  follows  that 
this  declaration  cannot  prove  the  knowledge  of  those  Avho 
have  no  revelation ;  but  this  is  the  very  thing  assumed  by 
the  advocates  of  natural  theology.  Finally:  creation, 
revelation,  and  the  mpernatural  phenomena  which  we  have 
specified,  bear  a  united  testimony  to  the  fact,  that  Jehovah 
is  the  author  ofi  all,  and  that  beside  him  there  is  no  God! 
These  three  teachers  distinctly  and  unitedly  speak  thus : 
revelation  makes  known;  and  the  siipernatural  phenomena 
2)7-ove  revelation  to  he  what  it  2n'ofesses  to  be  ;  while  the 
magnificent  worJcs  of  creation  bear  a  testimony  that  con- 
stantly illustrates  and  corroborates  the  xohole  ! 

In  closing  our  remarks  upon  the  text  in  Romans,  we 
cannot  withholtl  from  the  reader  Mr.  Watson's  views  o^ that 
scripture,  as  given  in  his  "  Exposition."   See  the  place. 

"  Human  reason  was  never  left  to  acquire,  for  the  first 


186  watson's  theological  iNSTrrtrTEs 

time,  the  knowledge  of  tbe  existence  of  God  from  his 
■works  ;  but  that  doctrine  being  already  in  the  world,  the 
works  of  God  made  their  constant  appeal  to  the  reason  of 
man,  presented  to  it  an  evidence  of  the  most  convincing 
kind,  and  opened  courses  of  ennobling  and  sanctifying 
thought  which,  if  they  had  taken  the  least  dehght  in  them, 
would  have  preserved  men  from  all  the  degradiag  polythe- 
ism which  followed."  On  the  20th  verse  he  says  :  "  Some 
include  in  the  ra  Trony/xara  all  the  oj^erations  of  God  in  his 
moral  government,  and  tlie  previous  dispensation  of  grace  ; 
and  it  is  certain  that  the  word  used  is  wide,  enough  in  its 
meaning  to  comprehend  them.  The  argument,  however, 
rather  binds  us  to  take  it  in  its  stricter  sense  of  the  creation 
and  preservation  of  those  things  which  are  visible  in  the 
frame  and  constitution  of  the  world.  But  it  by  no  means 
follows  from  this,  that  the  apostle  intended  to  teach  that  the 
principles  of  God's  moral  government,  his  will,  and  our  du- 
ties and  hopes,  in  a  word,  all  that  has  been  termed  natural 
religion,  is  to  be  learned  by  the  study  of  physics,  and  that 
the  visible  world  is  a  sufficient  book  fo{  man.  The  apostle 
kneyr  well  that  both  among  Gentiles  and  Jews,  from  the 
earliest  ages,  there  had  been  communications  of  moral 
truth  in  direct  revelations,  and  traditions  of  those  revela- 
tions ;  that  the  world  had  never  been  without  moral  laws, 
or  without  promises  of  redemption ;  and  what  he  knew  to 
be  fact,  universally  acknowledged  by  those  to  Avhom  he 
writes,  he  assumes  ;  and  considers,  therefore,  that  what 
proves  the  existence  of  that  God,  made  known,  as  to  his 
will  and  designs,  in  these  early  and  'widely  diffused  revela- 
tion^ gave  authority  also  to  all  the  truth  which  had  ever 
been  connected  with  the  doctrine.  He  assumes,  in  fact, 
what  Ave  see  assumed  throughout  the  Scriptures,  that  God 
communicated  the  knowledge  of  himself  and  his  will  origi- 


AND  TIIE  EIBLE  DEFENDED. 


187 


nally  to  mankind  ;  that  this  kuowledgo,  though  disregard- 
ed and  darkened,  Avas  never  wholly  lost ;  that  the  visible 
creation  was  a  standing  testimony  to  it  as  existing,  not  the 
means  of  first  revealing  it,  nor  of  recovering  it  through  a 
process  of  reasoning,  if,  in  any  instance,  entirely  lost." 
Mark,  Watson  says,  and  understands  Paul  to  say,  that  "  the 
visible  Creation  was  a  standing  testimony  to  "  what  God  had 
revealed.  On  the  other  hand,  the  advocates  of  natural  theol- 
ogy claim  that  the  visible  creation  reveals^  as  well  as  testifies 
to,  "  all  that  has  been  termed  natural  religion."  In  the  one 
case,  the  natural  is  represented  as  bearing  witness  to  the 
supernatural;  in  the  other  all  is  natural,  and  the  supernat- 
ural is  excluded.    That  is  the  difterence. 


188 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


CHAPTER  VI. 

To  the  teachings  of  Watson's  revie-wer,  as  to  what  man 
is  naturally^  inevitably,  and  universally,  we  will  now  oppose 
the  facts  of  human  history. 

In  an  article  published  in  "  The  Methodist  Magazine  and 
Quarterly  Review,"  for  Jamiary,  1838,  entitled  "Observa- 
tions on  Watson's  Theological  Institutes,"  by  W.  M.  B.,  we 
have  the  following  remarks:  "The  first  particular,  perhaps, 
which  will  strike  the  thoughtful  reader  as  he  proceeds,  is 
the  strange  fatuity  with  Avhich  philosophers  and  theologi- 
ans of  old  sought  to  develop  the  idea  of  God  from  the 
elements  of  human  reason.  As  if  the  reality  of  divine  rev- 
elation must  be  established  by  proving  it  unnecessary ;  as 
though  it  were  to  be  demonstrated  that  God  had  revealed 
himself,  by  showing  that  we  could  have  discovered  him 
without  revelation.  First,  in  order  of  these  attempts,  came 
the  doctrine  of  innate  ideas ;  and  the  defender  of  divine 
truth  asserted  that  the  idea  of  God  is  congenital  to  the 
mind  of  man,  and  cannot  be  shaken  off.  Thus  it  was  to  be 
proved  that  the  Scriptures  revealed  a  high  and  important 
truth,  in  that  they  proclaimed  to  us  a  doctrine. which  we 
could  not,  from  our  very  constitution,  fail  to  know.  But 
stubborn  fact  annihilated  the  chimera.  Men  were  found 
who  had  no  such  idea,  and  the  doctrine  disappeared.  Next 


AND  THE  BEBLE  DEFEJqDED. 


189 


appeared  the  baptized  believers  in  natural  religion.  These 
did  not  maintain  that  the  idea  of  God  was  born  mth  us, 
but  that  the  capacities  born  -within  us  could,  at  the  least,  find 
a  God  in  the  things  without  us.  Fact  and  reason,  however, 
both  overthrew  the  notion.  For  the  fact^  the  idea  never 
xcas  discovered  by  man.  For  the  reason,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that,  without  religion,  the  mind  of  man  could,  by  any 
means,  be  brought  to  such  a  degree  of  elevation  as  even  to 
entertain  the  question.  The  reasoning  of  Mr.  Watson  on 
this  point  is  quite  satisfactory."  The  reader  will  observe 
that  where  W.  M.  B.  finds  Watson  "  quite  satisfactory," 
just  there  it  is  that  Mr.  C.  finds  the  eiTor  that  "landed,  as 
indeed  it  must  inevitably  land,  in  pure  materiahsm."  It  is 
a  mistake,  however,  to  suppose  that  "  the  strange  fatuity, 
the  chimera,  of  philosophers  and  theologians  of  old,"  and 
of  "  baptized  believers,"  has  "  disappeared ; "  or,  if  it  had 
disappeared,  it  certainly  has  appeared  again,  and  again  it 
must  be  opposed,  if  not  "  annihilated,"  by  "  stubborn  fact ; " 
for  nothing  but  "  stubborn  fact,"  it  seems,  will  drive  "  bap- 
tized belijevers  "  from  this  strange  fatuity,"  this  marvellous 
"  chimera." 

In  evidence  of  the  innate  ideas,  the  natural  theology,  of 
the  ancient  Egyptians,  we  will  give  a  single  quotation  from 
the  satirist  Juvenal,  as  some  will  believe  him  sooner  than 
Paul : 

Who  has  not  heard,  where  Egypt's  realms  are  named, 
What  monster  gods  her  fertile  sons  have  framed? 
Her  Ibis,  gorged  with  well-grown  serpents,  there 
The  crocodile  commands  religious  fear  ; 
Where  Memnon's  statue  magic  springs  inspire 
With  vocal  sounds  that  emulate  the  lyre ; 
And  Thebes — such,  fate,  are  thy  disastrous  turns — 
Now  prostrate  o'er  her  pompous  ruins  mourns ; 


190 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES 


A  monkey  god,  prodigious  to  behold  ! 
Strikes  the  beholder's  eye  with  burnish'd  gold : 
To  godship  here  blue  Triton's  scaly  herd, 
The  river  progeny  is  there  preferr'd ; 
Through  towns  Diana's  power  neglected  lies. 
Where  to  her  dogs  aspiring  temples  rise  : 
And  should  you  leeks  or  onions  eat,  no  tune 
Would  expiate  the  sacrilegious  crime. 
Religious  nations,  sure,  and  bless'd  abodes, 
Where  every  orchard  is  o'errun  with  gods. 

This  "  natural  religion  "  of  the  Egyptians  was  a  little 
too  bad  even  foY  Juvenal,  immoral  and  sceptical  as  he  was. 

The  Carthaginians,  Tyrians,  Phoenicians,  Philistines, 
and  Canaanites  Avere  little,  if  anything,  better  than  the 
Egyptians.  Hercules,  the  Moon,  and  Saturn  seem  to  have 
been  the  principal  deities  of  the  Carthaginians ;  it  was  to 
the  latter  they  offered  human  sacrifices,  which  were  com- 
mon among  them.  It  is  this  probably  that  gave  rise  to- the 
fable  of  Saturn's  having  devoured  his  own  children.  The 
idolatrous  practices  of  the  other  nations  mentioned  above 
being  specified  in  Scripture,  it  is  not  necessary  to  mention 
them  here.  Tertullian  says  that  children  were  sacrificed  to 
Saturn,  or  Moloch,  down  to  the  proconsulship  of  Tiberius, 
who  hanged  the  sacrificing  priests  themselves  upon  the 
trees  which  shaded  their  temple.  Diodorus  says  that 
"when  Agathocles  was  going  to  besiege  Carthage,  the 
people,  seeing  the  extremity  to  which  they  were  reduced, 
imputed  all  their  misfortune  to  the  auger  of  their  god, 
Saturn,  because  that,  instead  of  offering  up  to  him  children 
nobly  born,  he  had  been  fraudulently  put  off  with  the  chil- 
dren of  slaves  and  foreigners.  To  atone  for  this,  and  ap- 
pease the  anger  of  this  god,  two  hundred  children  of  the 
best  families  m  Carthage  were  offered  in  sacrifice  on  this 
occasion,  and  as  many  as  three  hundred  of  the  citizens  vol- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFESTDED. 


191 


untarily  -went  into  the  tire  and  sacrificed  themselves  with- 
out compulsion." 

It  is  -well  known  that  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans  were 
gross  idolaters.  The  following  from  Eusebius  wiU.  convey 
an  idea  of  their  "  intuitions  of  pure  reason  "  :  "  Ur,  Avhich 
signifies  fire,  was  the  idol  they  worshipped,  and,  as  fire  will, 
in  general,  consume  everything  thrown  into  it,  so  the  As- 
s}Tians  piiblished  abroad  that  the  gods  of  other  nations 
could  not  stand  before  theirs.  Many  experiments  were 
tried,  and  vast  numbers  of  idols  were  brought  from  other 
parts,  but  they  being  of  wood,  the  all-devouring  god  Ur, 
or  fire,  consumed  them.  At  last  an  Egyptian  priest  found 
out  the  art  to  destroy  the  reputation  of  this  mighty  idol, 
which  had  so  long  been  the  terror  of  distant  nations.  He 
caused  the  figure  of  an  idol  to  be  made  of  porous  earth, 
and  the  belly  of  it  was  fiUed  with  water.  On  each  side  of 
the  belly  holes  were  made,  but  filled  iip  with  wax.  This 
being  done,  he  challenged  the  god  Ur  to  oppose  his  god 
Canopus,  which  was  accepted  of  by  the  Chaldean  priests  ; 
but  no  sooner  did  the  was  which  stopped  up  the  holes  in 
the  belly  of  Canopus  begin  to  melt  than  the  water  burst 
out  and  drowned  the  fire."  Adramelech  was  another  god 
of  the  Assyrians  ;  Xisroch,  too,  was  in  high  repute  among 
them,  especially  at  Nineveh.  Milton,  who  very  properly 
recognized  idols  as  the  mere  representatives  of  devils, 
speaks  of  this  idol,  or  rather  of  the  demon  which  it  repre- 
sented, thus : 

 In  the  assembly  next  upstood 

Xisroch,  of  principalities  the  prince. 

Both  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans  sacrificed  their  chil- 
dren to  their  idols.  In  the  province  of  Sejiharvaim  the 
people  are  said  to  have  been  "  most  horrid  and  barbarous 
idolaters." 


192  "Watson's  theological  institutes 

Of  the  M&des  and  Persians  we  are  told  that,  "  In  con- 
sequence of  the  veneration  they  paid  the  sun,  they  wor- 
shipped fire,  and  invoked  it  in  all  their  sacrifices.  But 
their  adoration  was  not  confined  to  the  sun  ;  they  worship- 
ped the  water,  the  earth,  and  the  winds  as  so  many  deities. 
Human  sacrifices  were  olfered  by  them,  and  they  burnt 
their  children  in  fiery  furnaces  appropriated  to  their  idols." 
Two  notable  gods  among  them  were  Arimanius  and  Oro- 
masdes.  "  Some  ancient  writers  have  given  us  a  very  odd 
account  of  this  god  Arimanius,  which  may  serve  to  point 
out  their  ignorance  of  divine  things.  Oromasdes,  say  they, 
considering  that  he  was  alone,  said  to  himself.  If  I  have  no 
one  to  oppose  me,  where  then  is  all  my  glory  ?  This  sin- 
gle reflection  of  his  created  Arimanius,  who,  by  his  ever- 
lasting opposition  to  the  will  of  Oromasdes,  contributed  to 
the  glory  of  the  latter.  "We  are  told  by  Plutarch  that 
Oromasdes  created  seven  inferior  gods,  or  genii,  such  as 
wisdom,  goodness,  justice,  truth,  the  comforts  of  life,  and 
all  lawful  enjoyments.  On  the  other  hand,  Arimanius 
created  as  many  devils,  such  as  lies,  wickedness,  and  all 
sorts  of  abominations.  The  former  likewise  created  twenty- 
four  devils,  and  enclosed  them  in  an  egg  ;  the  latter  broke 
the  egg,  and  by  that  means  created  a  mixture  of  good  and 
evil."  Thus  it  was  that  "  the  intuitions  of  pure  reason  " 
perverted  the  Scripture  account  of  the  creation  and  fall  of 
angels  and  men.  Nor  do  we  find  that  the  heathens  of 
more  modern  times  are  any  better  ;  in  the  Actings  of  some 
of  the  nations,  or  tribes,  within  the  bounds  of  the  great 
Mogul  Empire,  we  are  told  that  "  in  the  beginning  God 
created  a  woman,  whose  name  was  Paraxacti,  which  signi- 
fied sublime  power,  and  this  woman  had  three  sons,  the 
first  of  whom  was  born  with  five  heads,  and  was  called 
'  Bruma,'  which  signifies  knowledge,  and  he  was  endued 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


193 


with  the  power  of  creating  all  inferior  beings.  The  name 
of  the  second  son  was  Vixnu,  and  he  was  to  be  the  lord  of 
providence,  by  preserving  all  things  as  they  came  from  the 
hands  of  '  Bruma.'  The  third  son  was  named  Rutrem,  and 
he  had  power  given  him  to  destroy  all  things  which  his  other 
two  brothers  had  made  and  preserved.  This  Rutrem,  like 
his  brother  Bruma,  had  five  heads,  and  the  three  brothers 
agreed  to  marry  their  mother,"the  result  of  which  was 
another  monster  progeny,  and  aU  gods,  of  course,  having 
splendid  temples  built  for  them,  and  in  -which  they  are  wor- 
shipped according  to  "the  intuitions  of  pure  reason." 
These  gods,  according  to  the  showing  of  their  worshippers, 
continued  to  increase ;  but  they  are  such  monsters,  and 
their  history  so  absurd  and  so  vile,  that  we  must  not  quote 
further.  See  Bishop  Hurd's  "History  of  Religious,"  to 
which  we  are  indebted  for  the  above  quotations. 

The  following  extracts  are  from  a  tract  published  by  the 
M.  E.  Church,  and  entitled  "  A  Catechism  for  the  Deist :  " 
"  The  inhabitants  of  Ceylon  worship  devils."  "  When  the 
missionaries  landed  in  Bengal  in  the  year  1V93  they  found 
the  inhabitants  sunk  in  the  grossest  idolatry,  acknowledg- 
ing, at  least,  three  hundred  and  thirty  millions  of  gods. 
"What  was  the  nature  of  their  worship  at  that  time  ?  It 
was  blind  adoration  of  a  senseless  idol ;  devotion  to  a  mon- 
key, a  serpent,  or  a  log  of  wood,  mixed  with  many  acts  of 
impurity.  What  ideas  had  they  of  fat\irity  ?  Nothing 
more  than  eternal  transmigration,  or  absorption  into  the 
goul  of  the  universe.  They  believed  that  when  a  man  died 
he  rose  again  either  in  the  form  of  a  cat,  or  a  dog,  or  a 
worm,  or  some  other  reptile."  Rev.  Mr.  "Ward,  who  has 
been  a  long  time  a  missionary  in  India,  says :  "  I  have  never 
known  one  man  among  them,  previously  to  his  conversion 
to  Christianity,  who  appeared  to  fear  God  and  work  right- 
9 


194  watson's  tiieological  institutes 


eousness.  The  impurity  of  their  conversation  is  beyond 
all  description.  They  are  finished  adepts  in  the  art  of  de- 
ception. For  slander  and  abuse  they  stand  unrivalled,  even 
among  tlie  most  degraded  of  mankind  !  What  is  the  prac- 
tice of  heathen  mothers  in  India  respecting  their  children  ? 
When  the  first-born  is  two  or  three  years  old,  the  mother 
takes  it  to  the  river,  encourages  it  to  walk  in  the  stream, 
and  then  abandons  it  to  the  cruelty  of  the  terrible  alligator : 
tins  she  does  in  hopes  of  having  a  numerous  offspring.  " 
Such  are  some  of  the  "deductions  from  the  mind's  own 
first  principles,"  some  of  those  "primary  judgments"  of 
which  our  transcendental  philosophers  sjjeak !  To  those 
■who  have  such  exalted  views  of  the  natural  man  and  of 
natural  religion,  we  Avould  recommend  a  careful  perusal  of 
this  little  tract,  also  of  what  Mr.  Wesley  says  on  the  same 
subject  in  vol.  v  of  his  Miscellaneous  Works,  p.  496,  &c. 
A  few  short  quotations  just  here  may  be  useful. 

"  Shall  we  turn  our  eyes  for  a  moment  from  the  scrip- 
tural to  the  profane  account  of  mankind  in  the  earliest 
ages  ?  What  was  the  general  sentiment  of  the  most  polite 
and  knowing  nation,  the  Romans,  when  their  learning  was 
in  its  utmost  perfection  ?  Let  one,  who  certainly  was  no 
bigot  or  enthusiast,  speak  for  the  rest.  And  he  speaks 
home  to  the  point : 

'  Full  many  a  war  has  been  for  womeu  waged 
Ere  half  the  world  in  Helen's  cause  engaged; 
But,  unrecorded  in  historic  verse, 
Obscurely  died  those  savage  ravishers. 
Who  like  brute  beasts  the  female  bore  away, 
Till  some  superior  brute  rc-seized  the  prey  : 
As  a  wild  bull,  his  rival  bull  o'erthroisTi, 
Claims  the  whole  subject  herd,  and  reigns  alone.' 

I  doubt  he  who  gives  this,  not  as  his  peculiar  opinion,  but 


AKD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


195 


as  what  vras  then  a  generally  received  notion,  would  scarce 
have  allowed  even  as  much  as  Juvenal : 

'  Chastity  did  once,  I  grant,  remain 
On  earth,  and  flourish'd  in  old  Saturn's  reign ; ' 

unless  one  should  suppose  the  reign  of  Saturn  to  have  ex- 
pired when  Adam  was  driven  out  of  paradise.  I  cannot 
forbear  adding  another  picture  of  the  ancient  dignity  of 
human  nature,  drawn  by  the  same  masterly  hand.  Before 
men  dwelt  in  cities,  he  says : 

'  The  human  herd,  unbroken  and  untaught, 
For  acorns  first,  and  grassy  couches  fought ; 
With  fists,  and  then  with  clubs  maintained  the  fray, 
Till,  urged  by  hate,  they  found  a  quicker  way. 
And  forged  pernicious  arms,  and  loarn'd  the  art  to  slay.' 

What  a  diflference  there  is  between  this  and  the  gay,  florid 
accounts  which  many  moderns  give  of  their  own  species  !  " 
And,  we  may  add,  what  a  difference  between  this  and  the 
accounts  given  by  Watson's  reviewers ! 

As  £he  teachings  which  called  forth  this  defence  are  a 
mere  revival  of  those  opposed  by  Wesley  and  Watson,  in 
their  day,  we  must  beg  leave  to  give  yet  another  quotation 
fi'ora  the  former  ;  we  take  it  from  page  503  : 

"  Would  we  know,  then,  what  manner  of  men  the  hea- 
thens in  Africa  were  two  or  three  thousand  years  ago  ? 
Inquire  what  they  are  now,  who  are  genuine  j^agans  still,  not 
tainted  with  either  Mohammedanism  or  Christianity.  They 
are  to  be  fovmd  in  abundance  either  in  N'egroland  or  round 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  Now  what  measure  of  knowl- 
edge have  the  natives  of  either  of  these  countries  ?  I  do 
not  say  in  metaphysics,  mathematics,  or  astronomy.  Of 
these  it  is  plain  they  know  just  as  much  as  their  four-footed 
brethren ;  the  lion  and  the  man  are  equally  accou)plished 


196  Watson's  theological  institutes 


•with  regard  to  this  knowledge.  I  will  not  ask  w'hat  they 
know  of  the  nature  of  government,  of  the  respective  rights 
of  kings  and  various  orders  of  subjects :  in  this  regard,  a 
herd  of  men  are  manifestly  inferior  to  a  herd  of  elephants. 
But  let  us  view  them  with  respect  to  common  life.  AVhat 
do  they  know  df  the  things  they  continually  stand  in  need 
of  ?  How  do  they  build  habitations  for  themselves  and 
their  feinilies ;  how  select  and  prepare  their  food  ;  clothe 
and  adorn  their  persons  ?  ^s  to  their  habitations,  it  is 
certain,  I  will  not  say  our  horses  (particularly  those  belong- 
ing to  the  nobility  and  gentry),  but  an  English  jieasant's 
dogs,  nay,  his  very  swine,  are  more  commodiously  lodged  ; 
and  as  to  their  food,  apparel,  and  ornaments,  they  are  just 
suitable  to  their  edifices : 

Your  nicer  Hottentots  think  meet 
With  guts  and  tripe  to  deck  their  feet ; 
With  downcast  eyes  on  Totta's  legs, 
The  love-sick  youth  most  humbly  begs, 
She  would  not  from  his  sight  remove 
At  once  his  breakfast  and  his  love. 

Such  is  the  knowledge  of  these  accomplished  animals,  in 
things  which  cannot  but  daily  employ  their  thoughts  ;  and 
wherein,  consequently,  they  cannot  avoid  exerting,  to  the 
uttermost,  both  their  natural  and  acquired  understanding." 

Once  more  :  speaking  of  the  glowing  representations 
which  some  have  given  of  the  Chinese,  and  of  their  own 
high  opinion  of  themselves,  as  expressed  in  the  following 
proverb :  "  The  Chinese  have  two  eyes,  the  Europeans  one, 
and  other  men  none  at  all,"  and  after  giving  evidence  of 
the  ignorance  and  degradation  of  the  masses,  he  says,  page 
506 :  "  But  in  order  to  see  the  true  measure  of  their  un- 
derstanding in  the  clearest  light,  let  us  look,  not  at  women, 


AND  THE  BIELE  DEFENDED. 


197 


or  the  vulgar,  but  at  the  nobility,  the  wLsest,  the  politest 
part  of  the  nation.  Look  at  the  mandarins,  the  glory  of 
the  empire,  and  see  any,  every  one  of  them  at  his  meals, 
not  deigning  to  use  his  own  hands,  but  having  his  meat 
put  into  his  mouth  by  two  servants,  planted  for  that  pur- 
pose, oue  on  his  right  hand,  the  other  on  his  left !  Ob,  the 
deep  understanding  of  the  noble  lubber  that  sits  in  the 
midst,  and 

'  Gapes,  as  the  young  swallow,  for  his  food.' 
Surely  an  English  ploughman,  or  a  Dutch  sailor,  Avould 
have  too  much  sense  to  endure  it.  If  you  say,  '  Nay,  the 
mandarin  would  not  endure  it,  but  that  it  is  a  custom  y  ' 
I  answer,  undoubtedly  it  is  ;  but  how  came  it  to  be  a  cus- 
tom ?  Such  a  custom  could  not  have  begun,  much  less 
have  become  general,  but  through  a  general  and  marvel- 
lous want  of  common  sense." 

Such  are  some  of  the  facts  of  human  history,  as  to 
whole  nations,  both  ancient  and  modern ;  and  facts  much 
worse  tkan  any  we  have  mentioned  have  been  omitted,  be- 
cause too  bad  to  mention ;  nor  would  we  have  copied  some 
of  the  above  testimonies  were  it  not  that  we  considered  it 
necessary  in  view  of  the  confident  assertions  we  desi^  to 
refute.  I'resuraing  that  the  reader  is  satisfied  with,  as  well 
as  sick  of,  the  dark  picture  here  given,  we  will  now  turn 
from  nations  to  individuals ;  nor  will  we  select  the  most  ig- 
norant and  degraded,  but  the  brightest  luminaries  of  the 
ancient  heathen  nations,  especially  those  of  Greece  and 
Rome,  and  that  in  their  palmiest  days.  Watson  has  ad- 
duced numerous  testimonies  for  the  same  purpose,  but  we 
choose  to  quote  from  other  sources,  and  thereby  increase 
the  evidence. 

The  following  quotations  are  from  Grotius  on  "The 
Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion." 


198  watson's  theological  institutes 


Aristotle,  it  is  well  known,  asserted  the  eternity  of  the 
world,  both  in  matter  and  form  ;  yet  he  says,  very  candid- 
ly :  "  There  are  some  questions  against  which  very  good 
arguments  may  be  brought ;  it  being  very  doubtful  which 
side  is  in  the  right,  there  being  great  probability  on  either 
hand,  we  have  no  certainty  of  them.  And  though  they  be 
of  great  weight,  we  find  it  very  dilBcult  to  determine  the 
case  and  manner  of  their  existence.  As,  for  instance, 
whether  the  world  were  from  eternity  or  no ;  for  such 
things  are  disputed."  Speaking  of  the  generation  of  ani- 
mals he  uses  these  words  :  "  It  would  not  be  a  foolish  con- 
jecture concerning  the  first  rise  of  men  and  beasts,  if  any 
one  should  imagine  that  of  old  they  sprung  out  of  the  earth 
in  one  of  these  two  ways :  either  after  the  manner  of  mag- 
gots, or  to  have  come  from  eggs."  Finally,  after  weighing 
the  probabilities  for  and  against  each  of  these  conjectures, 
he  concludes  thus :  "  If  therefore  animals  had  any  begin- 
nmg,  it  is  manifest,  it  must  be  in  one  of  these  two  ways." 
Such  are  "  the  primitive  judgments  "  of  this  philosopher. 
He  was  not  sure  whether  "  animals  had  any  beginning,'^ 
but  if  they  had,  "  it  must  be  after  the  manner  of  maggots, 
or  f^om  eggs  !  " 

Diodorus  Siculus,  after  supporting  the  maggot  theory 
at  great  length,  thus  concludes :  "  Now  the  earth  being 
very  much  dried  and  hardened,  by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  and 
by  the  wind,  was  no  longer  able  to  bring  forth  living 
creatures,  but  they  were  afterward  begotten  by  mixing 
with  each  other."  "Euripides"  says  Grotius,  "seems  not 
to  contradict  this  account,  for  he  says  in  his  MenaUppe : 

'  Heaven  and  earth  at  first  were  of  one  form, 
But  when  their  different  parts  were  separate, 
Thence  sprung  beasts,  fowls,  and  all  the  shoals  of  fish, 
Nay,  even  men  themselves.' 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


199 


This,  therefore,  is  the  account  we  have  received  of  the 
original  of  all  things.  And  if  it  should  seem  strange  to  any 
one,  that  the  earth  should  in  the  beginning  have  a  power 
to  bring  forth  Uving  creatures,  it  may  be  further  coufirmecT 
by  what  we  see  comes  to  pass  even  now.  For  at  Thebais, 
in  Egj^Dt,  upon  the  river  Nile's  very  much  overflowing  his 
banks,  and  thereby  moistening  the  ground,  immediately  by 
the  heat  of  the  sun  is  caused  a  putrefaction,  out  of  which 
arises  an  incredible  number  of  mice.  Xow,  if  after  the 
earth  has  been  thus  hardened,  and  the  aii-  does  not  preserve 
its  original  temperature,  yet  some  animals  are,  notwith- 
standing, produced  from  hence,  it  is  manifest  that  in  the 
beginniug  all  sorts  of  living  creatures  were  produced  out  of 
the  earth  in  this  manner !  "  According  to  the  "  intuitions  " 
of  this  plulosopher  'men  and  mice  had  the  same  origin ! 
And  so  had  aU  "  living  creatures ; "  they  were  produced 
from  marshy  and  2^utrkl  places,  by  the  heat  of  the  sun, 
and  after  the  earth  became  too  hard  and  dry  for  such 
purposes,  "  they  were  afterward  begotten  by  mixing  with 
each  other."  These  philosophers  preferred  this  to  the  egg 
theory,  doubtless  for  this  ob\-ious  reason :  they  could  not 
tell  where  the  egg  came  from  !  For  the  same  reason  it  is, 
no  doubt,  that  Aristotle  does  not  say  a  word  about  the 
origin  of  the  egg ;  that  was  too  much  for  his  "  primitive 
judgments."  The  gods,  too,  it  would  seem,  they  supposed 
to  have  originated  in  the  same  way,  for  in  the  hymns 
ascribed  to  Orpheus,  it  is  said  : 

"  All  things  that  are,  sprung  from  chaos  vast." 
The  same  sentiment  is  thus  expressed  by  Epicharmus : 

"  'Tis  sjud  that  chaos  was  before  the  gods." 
"  And  Aristophanes,"  says  Grotius,  "  in  his  play  called 
the  Birds,  in  a  passage  preserved  from  Lucian,  in  his  Phi- 


200 


watson's  theological  institutes 


lopatris,''''  thus  accounts  for  the  origin  of  gods,  men,  and  all 
animals : 

"  First  of  all  was  chaos  and  night,  dark  Erebus  and  gloomy  Tartarus ; 
There  was  no  earth,  nor  air,  nor  heaven,  till  dusky  night, 
By  the  wind's  power  on  the  wide  bosom  of  Erebus,  brought  forth  an 
egg, 

Of  whicli  was  hatched  the  god  of  love  (when  time  began),  who  with 
his  golden  wings 

Fixed  to  his  shoulders,  flew  like  a  mighty  whirlwind,  and  mixing  with 
black  chaos. 

In  Tartarus'  dark  shades,  produced  mankind,  and  brought  them  into 
light. 

For,  before  love  joined  all  things,  the  gods  themselves  had  no  exist- 
ence ; 

But  upon  this  conjunction,  all  things  being  mixed  and  blended,  a;ther 
arose. 

And  sea  and  earth,  and  blessed  abodes  of  immortal  gods." 

"These,"  adds  Grotius,  "appear,  upon  a  very  slight 
view,  to  be  taken  from  the  tradition  of  the  Phoenicians, 
"who  held  an  ancient  correspondence  with  the  inhabitants 
of  Attica,  the  most  ancient  of  the  lonians."  We  have  the 
same  sentiment  expressed  in  the  following  words,  quoted 
from  Parmenides : 

"  Love  was  the  first  of  all  the  gods." 
Orpheus,  too,  in  his  hymn  to  night,  says : 

"  I  sing  the  night,  parent  of  men  and  gods." 
And  Zeno,  too,  who  was  a  Phoenician,  gives  us  his  views  in 
the  following  words :  "  The  chaos  in  Hesiod  is  water,  of 
which  all  things  were  made  ;  the  water  subsiding  made 
mud,  and  the  mud  congealing  made  solid  earth." 

Thus  it  is  that  those  great  men,  the  brightest  lights  of 
the  ancient  heathen  nations,  attempted  to  account  for  "  the 
origin  of  all  things."   Some  commence  with  water,  some 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


201 


with  putrid  mud,  and  some  with  an  egg  ;  but  where  the 
water,  the  mud,  or  the  egg  came  from,  they  do  not  at- 
tempt to  tell,  except  Aristophanes,  who  tells  us  that  the 
"  egg  Avas  brought  forth  by  the  wind's  pov/er  on  the  wide 
bosom  of  Erebus,"  and  of  this  egg,  whose  mother  was  Ere- 
bus, or  dusky  night,  and  M  hose  father  was  the  wind,  "  was 
hatched  the  god  of  love."  Whether  this  attemjrt  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  the  egg  was  better  than  no  attempt  at  all 
we  leave  the  reader  to  decide  ;  only,  Ave  must  not  lose 
sight  of  the  fact,  that  "the  primitive  judgments"  of  these 
sapient  ones,  give  a  common  origiii  to  maggots,  mice,  men, 
and  gods  !  Nor  let  it  be  supposed  that  these  are  the  mere 
flights  of  poetic  minds,  or  the  mere  whims  of  certain  eccen- 
tric philosophers  ;  for  the  best  schools  of  antiquity,  the 
schools  of  the  philosophers,  have  done  no  better.  Dr. 
Thomas  Burnet,  as  quoted  by  Watson,  says :  "  The  Ionic, 
Pythagoric,  Platonic,  and  Stoic  schools,  all  agreed  in  assort- 
ing the  eternity  of  matter,  and  that  the  doctrine  that 
matter  was  created  out  of  nothing  seems  to  have  been 
unknown  to  the  philosophers,  and  is  one  of  which  they  had 
no  notion."  Dr.  Doddridge,  too,  speaking  of  the  Epicu- 
reans and  Stoics,  says :  "  But  I  think  Dr.  Benson  has  ex- 
pressed himself,  on  the  whole,  in  a  very  impartial  and  judi- 
•  cious,  as  Avell  as  comprehensive,  manner,  Avhen  he  tells  us, 
'  They  held  that  matter  was  eternal,  god  corporeal,'  that 
is,  a  fiery  substance,  '  and  they,'  generally,  '  looked  upon 
all  things  as  subject  to  an  irresistible  fatality,  and  that 
virtue  was  its  gwn  sufiicient  reward.  And  they  fluctu- 
ated exceedingly  as  to  their  belief  of  future  rewards  and 
punishments,  though  they  had  some  expectations  of  a  future 
stat'e,  as  Avell  as  of  the  conflagration  and  renovation  of  the 
world  ; '  with  relation  to  which,  several  of  them  seem  to 
have  expected  a  continual  revolution  of  exactly  similar 
9* 


202  watson's  theological  institutes 


events  at  equally  distant  periods  of  time.  The  attentive 
reader  will  easily  see  how  opposite  the  genius  of  each  of 
these  sects  was  to  the  pure  and  humble  spirit  of  Christi- 
'anity,  and  how  happily  the  apostle  levels  his  incomparable 
discourse  at  some  of  the  most  distinguishing  and  import- 
ant eiTors  of  each,"  See  the  doctor's  notes  on  Acts  xvii, 
18.  It  will  be  seen  that  Doddridge  observes,  very  proi> 
erly,  not  only  that  the  teachings  of  those  philosophers  were 
deficient,  but  that  they  were  directly  "  opposite  "  to  those 
of  the  inspired  writers.  They  were  not  only  ignorant  of 
God  and  of  themselves,  but  when  Paul  proclaimed  to  them 
the  truth  in  each  case,  they  treated  it  with  contempt,  and 
called  him  a  babbler,  or,  a  base  fellow,  as  it  is  in  the  mar- 
gin. No  wonder  that  the  city  of  Athens,  under  the  teach- 
iug  of  such  philosophers,  was  "  wholly  given  to  idolatry," 
01',  as  it  is  in  the  mai'gin,  "  full  of  idols."  It  is  only  neces- 
sary to  observe,  that  the  silly  accounts  given  by  those  dif- 
ferent philosophers,  of  "  the  origin  of  all  things,"  are  only 
so  many  perversions  of  the  history  of  the  creation  and  for- 
mation of  the  world,  as  given  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
especially  of  the  second  verse.  And  all  this  goes  to  show 
that  the  light  of  revelation  had  reached  them,  but  they 
had  closed  their  eyes  to  it,  and  perverted  its  teachings,  as 
Watson  shows. 

Speaking  of  the  facts,  that  the  light  of  revelation  had 
reached  the  heathen,  and  that  they  had  perverted  the 
teachings  of  revelation,  Grotius  says,  "  Which  of  the  poets  is 
it  in  which  we  do  not  find  mention  made  of  the  attemjit  to 
climb  the  heavens?"  And  speaking  of  Ham,  the  second 
son  of  Noah,  he  says,  "  This  person  is  transformed,  not  only 
by  the  Libyans,  but  also  by  many  other  nations,  into  the 
star  Jupiter,  as  a  god."  In  .proof  of  this  he  gives  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  from  Lucan,  book  ix : 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


203 


•   "  Jupiter  Ammon  is  the  only  god 

Amongst  the  happy  Arabs,  and  amongst 
The  Indians  and  Ethiopians." 

Le  Clerc,  too,  gives  us  a  perverted  account  of  the  deluge 
from  Abydenus'  history  of  Assyria,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius. 
Many  similar  accounts  of  the  deluge  are  furnished  by  Gro- 
tius,  from  Berosus,  Plutarch,  Lucian,  and  others.  He  also 
says :  "  The  history  of  Jonah's  being  three  days  in  the 
whale's  belly  is  in  Lycophrou  and  Eneas  Gazeus,  only  under 
the  name  of  Hercules ;  to  advance  whose  fame  everything 
that  was  great  and  noble  used  to  be  related  of  him,  as 
Tacitus  observes."  Calmet  says :  "  Many  of  the  ancient 
fathers  maintain,  that  the  ancient  heathen  philosophers  had 
nothing  valuable  but  what  they  borrowed  from  the  He- 
brews; that  they  had  drawn  from  the  fountain  of  the 
prophets;  that  by  the  subtile  artifice  of  the  devil,  some 
principles  of  truth  slipped  into  their  writings,  in  order  4o 
undermine  the  truth  at  such  time  as  God  should  manifest  it 
to  the  world.  Eusebius  has  devoted  two  entire  books  (lib. 
xi,  xii)  of  his  great  work  of  the  Gospel  Preparation,  to  show 
that  Plato  had  taken  the  principal  things  of  his  philosophy 
and  theology  from  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews."  "  Por- 
phyry," says  Le  Clerc,  "  acknowledges  that  Plato  took 
many  things  from  the  Hebrews,  as  Theodoret  observes  in 
his  first  discourse  against  the  Greeks."  Josephus,  in  what 
is  called  his  first  book  against  Apion,  when  speaking  of  the 
ancient  philosoj)hers  and  teachers  among  the  heathen  being 
acquainted  with  the  teachings  of  the  sacred  writers,  says  of 
Pythagoras,  that  "  it  is  plain  that  he  did  not  only  know  our 
doctrines  but  was  in  a  very  great  measure  a  follower  and 
admirer  of  them;"  and  as  one  proof  of  this  he  gives  the 
following  quotation  from  Hermippus,  who  wrote  the  his- 
tory of  Pythagoras  :  "  This  he  did  and  said  in  imitation  of 


204  watson's  theological  institutes 

the  doctrines  of  the  Jews  and  Thracians,  which  h%  transfer- 
red into  his  own  philosophy."  To  this  declaration  of  Her- 
mippus  Josephus  adds  :  "for  it  is  very  truly  affirmed  of  this 
Pythagoras,  that  he  took  a  great  many  of  the  laws  of  the 
Jews  into  his  own  lohilosojihy."  And  after  giving  numerous 
instances  of  a  similar  kind  he  sums  up  thus  toward  the 
close  of  his  second  book  against  Apion  :  "  We  have  already 
demonstrated  that  our  laws  have  been  such  as  have  always 
inspired  admiration  and  imitation  into  all  other  men ;  nay, 
the  earliest  Grecian  philosophers,  though  in  appearance 
they  observed  the  laws  of  their  own  countries,  yet  did  they, 
in  their  actions  and  philosophic  doctrines,  follow  our  legis- 
lator." And  a  little  after  he  adds :  "  Our  law  hath  no  bait 
of  pleasure  to  allure  men  to  it,  but  it  prevails  by  its  own 
force  ;  and  as  God  himself  pervades  all  the  world,  so  hath 
our  law  passed  through  all  the  world  also."  Clearchus, 
too,  the  scholar  of  Aristotle,  acknowledges  the  indebted- 
ness of  his  master  to  the  Jews  for  much  of  his  knowledge, 
and  gives  us,  in  what  he  says  are  Aristotle's  own  words,  a 
conversation  which  his  master  had  with  a  learned  Jew. 
He  represents  Aristotle  as  saying :  "  Now,  for  a  great  part 
of  what  this  Jew  said,  it  would  be  too  long  to  recite  it ; 
but  what  includes  in  it  both  wonder  and  philosophy,  it  may 
not  be  amiss  to  discourse  of"  Clearchus  finally  closes  with 
these  words :  "  but  as  he  [the  Jew]  had  lived  with  many 
learned  men,  he  communicated  to  us  more  information  than 
he  received  from  us."  What  this  Jew  communicated  to 
Aristotle  had  in  it,  says  that  philosopher,  "  both  wonder 
and  philosoi^hy."  See  this  account  as  given  by  Josephus  in 
the  first  book  of  his  "  Antiquity  of  the  Jews,"  from  which 
many  more  quotations  might  be  given  to  show  that  what 
is  valuable  in  the  teachings  of  those  philosophers,  at  least  in 
matters  of  religion,  they  had  fi-om  the  Jews  directly,  or  in- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


205 


directly  through  the  Chaldeans  and  others,  as  Mr.  "Watson 
observes,  and  this  is  still  further  confirmed  by  jTosephus, 
■who,  when  speaking  of  the  Greeks,  says :  "  Those  who  first 
introduced  philosophy  and  the  consideration  of  things  celes- 
tial and  divine  among  them,  such  as  Pherecydes  the  Syrian, 
and  Pythagoras,  and  Thales,  all  viith.  one  consent  agree  that 
they  learned  what  they  knew  of  the  Egyptians  and  Chal- 
deans," who  had  liieir  knowledge  of  divine  things  from  the 
J  ews. 

But  these  philosophers,  as  Mr.  Watson  observes,  and  as 
Josephus  proves,  seldom  acknowledged  their  indebtedness 
to  revelation,  or  preserved  in  its  purity  the  knowledge 
which  they  obtained  from  thence.  "  Some  of  the  philos- 
ophers," says  Josephus,  "  have  been  insolent  enough  to  in- 
dulge such  contradictions,  while  some  of  them  have  under- 
taken to  use  such  words  as  entu-ely  take  away  the  nature  of 
God ;  while  others  of  them  have  taken  away  his  iirovidenco 
over  mankind."  How  correct  is  this  statement !  They 
denied  the  providence  of  God  [the  same  fact  is  stated 
by  "Watson],  and  used  words  which  excluded  everything 
essential  to  the  nature  of  God.  Such  were  the  corrupt 
teachings  which  they  imparted  to  the  people  under  the  im- 
posing title  of  philosophy,  while  they  withheld  from  them 
those  correct  ideas  of  the  true  God  which,  from  time  to 
time,  they  obtained  from  sacred  sources.  Not  only  are 
these  facts  asserted  by  Josephus,  but  some  of  their  reasons 
for  so  doing  are  thus  assigned  :  "  Pythagoras,  Anaxagoras, 
Plato,  and  the  Stoic  philosophers  that  succeeded  them,  and 
almost  all  the  rest  are  of  the  same  sentiments,  and  had  the 
same  notions  of  the  true  God ;  yet  durst  not  these  men  dis- 
close those  true  notions  to  more  than  a  few,  because  the 
body  of  the  people  were  prejudiced  with  other  opinions  be- 
forehand."  And  again,  a  few  pages  after,  he  says  :  "  Nay, 


206  avatson's  theological  instittttes 

Plato  himself  confesseth  tliatitis  not  safe  to  publish  the  true 
notion  •conceraing  God  among  the  ignorant  laultitude.'" 
No  doubt  these  considerations  had  their  influence  in  lead- 
ing the  philosophers  to  conceal  from  the  people  con-ect,  and 
impart  erroneous,  ideas  of  God  ;  yet  the  fact  must  not  be 
overlooked,  nardely,  that,  if  "  the  body  of  the  people  weve 
prejudiced  with  other  opinions  beforehand,"  they  were  in- 
debted to  their  teachers  for  the  erroneous  opinions  which 
produced  such  bad  effects ;  and  those  teachers,  still  depend- 
ing upon  the  natural  and  rejecting  the  supernatural,  could 
not  correct  the  people  when  they  would !  Hence  two  facts 
are  still  to  be  accounted  for,  namely,  "Why  had  the  philos- 
ophers taught  the  people  those  erroneous  views  of  God  and 
religion  ?  And  why  did  the  people  still  hold  to  the  error, 
and  reject  the  truth  when  it  was  presented  ?  For  an  an- 
swer to  each  of  these  questions  we  must  return  to  the  in- 
spired penman ;  nor  will  we  fail  to  find  a  satisfactory  an- 
swer in  the  following  inspired  declarations :  "  The  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they 
are  foolishness  \mio  him ;  neither  can  he  know  them,  for 
they  are  spiritually  discerned."  He  cannot  know  them 
while  he  depends  upon  th6  natural,  and  rejects  the  super- 
natural remedy.  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God ; 
it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither,  indeed,  can  be," 
till  the  supernatural  remedy,  for  its  destruction,  is  aj^plied 
and  accepted.  That  occasional  correct  and  even  sublime 
ideas  of  God  should  be  found  in  the  wi'itings  and  sayings 
of  the  ancient  philosophers,  in  connection  with  so  much 
that  is  directly  the  opposite,  and  even  absurd,  in  the  last 
degree,  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  facts  here  noticed. 
They  had  those  ideas,  as  has  been  shown,  from  the  teach- 
ings of  revelation,  but  did  not  acknowledge  the  fact. 
Moreover,  their  unbelief,  pride,  and  the  other  causes  speci- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


207 


ficd,  led  them,  for  the  most  part,  to  corrupt  or  reject  the 
truth  thus  received.  Or,  as  Paul  expresses  it,  "  they  did 
aot  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,"  but  "  changed 
the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worshipped  and  served  the 
creature  more  than  the  Creator."  In  proof  of  this,  and  in 
opposition  to  the  assertions  of  Watson's  ojiponents,  we  will 
still  furthei-  quote  the  facts  of  human  history.  And  as 
Josephus  is  still  before  us  we  wiU  just  here  favor  the  reader 
with  a  few  samples  of  the  gods  worshipped  by  the  ancient 
heathen,  while  yet  those  renowned  philosophers,  of  which 
we  have  been  speaking,  were  their  teachers.  The  samples 
are  furnished  by  the  great  Jewish  historian  in  what  is  called 
his  second  book  against  Apion ;  but  it  is  improperly  so  call- 
ed, for  it  is  a  very  able  exposure  oPheathenism  and  the  vain 
pretensions  of  heathen  philosophers  and  historians,  and  a 
defence  of  the  religion  of  his  fathers,  and  of  the  writings  of 
the  prophets,  particularly  those  of  Moses.  As  for  "the 
Egyptian  Apion,"  as  he  calls  him,  he  takes  his  leave  of  that 
writer  on  the  fifth  page  of  this  book,  as  hardly  worthy  his 
notice.  - 

Here,  then,  are  a  few  of  the  samples,  as  furnished  by 
our  historian,  and  only  a  few,  for  they  are  so  numerous,  and 
most  of  them  so  xile,  that  we  can  only  select  a  few  of  the 
best  of  them : 

lie  charges  "  the  most  famous  poets  and  the  most  cele- 
brated legislators  "  with  "  spreading  such  notions  originally 
among  the  body  of  the  people  concerning  the  gods ;  such 
as  these :  that  they  may  be  as  numerous  as  the  people  have 
a  mind  to  have  them  ;  that  they  are  begotten  one  by  an- 
other, and  that  after  all  the  kinds  of  generation  you  can 
imagine.  •  They  also  distinguished  them  in  their  places  and 
ways  of  living,  as  they  would  distinguish  several  sorts  of 
animals  ;  as,  some  to  be  under  the  earth,  some  to  be  in  the 


208 


Watson's  theological  institutes 


sea,  and  the  ancieutest  of  them  all  to  be  bound  in  hell ;  and 
for  those  to  whom  they  have  allotted  heaven,  they  have  set 
over  them  one  who,  in  title,  is  their  fixther,  but  a  tyrant  and 
a  lord  ;  whence  it  came  to  pass  that  his  wife,  and  brother, 
and  daughter  (which  daughter  he  brought  forth  from  his 
own  head)  made  a  conspiracy  against  him  to  seize  upon 
him  and  confine  him,  as  he  had  himself  seized  upon  and 
confined  his  own  father  before."  They  also  taught  that 
"some  of  the  gods  were  beardless  and  young,  and  that 
others  of  them  were  old,  and  had  beards  accordingly. 
Also  that  some  are  set  to  trades  ;  that  one  god  is  a  smith, 
and  another  goddess  is  a  weaver  ;  that  one  god  is  a  warrior, 
and  fights  with  men  ;  that  some  of  them  are  harpers,  or 
delight  in  archery ;  anf ,  besides,  that  mutual  seditions 
arise  amongst  them,  and  that  they  quarrel  about  men,  and 
this  so  far  that  they  not  only  lay  hands  upon  one  another, 
but  that  they  are  wounded  by  men,  and  lament  and  take 
on  for  such  their  afflictions.  But  what  is  the  grossest  of 
all  are  those  unbounded  lusts  ascribed  to  almost  all  of 
them,  and  their  amours.  Moreover,  the  chief  of  all  their 
gods,  and  their  first  father  himself,  overlooks  those  goddesses 
whom  he  had  deluded,  *  *  *  and  suifers  them  to  be  kept  in 
prison  or  drowned  in  the  sea.  He  is  also  bound  up  by  fate, 
that  he  cannot  save  his  own  offspring,  nor  can  he  bear  their 
deaths  without  shedding  of  tears.  These  are  fine  things 
indeed !  as  are  the  rest  that  follow."  *  *  *  "  Nay,  others 
there  are  that  have  advanced  a  certain  timorousness  and 
fear,  as  also  madness  and  fraud,  and  any  other  of  the  vilest 
passions,  into  the  nature  and  form  of  gods,  and  have  per- 
suaded whole  cities  to  olFcr  sacrifices  to  the  better  sort  of 
them."  *  *  *  *  "  They  also  endeavor  to  move  them,  as 
they  would  the  vilest  of  men,  by  gifts  and  presents,  as  look- 
ing for  nothing  else  than  to  receive  some  great  mischief 


AJSD  THE  BIELE  DEFENDED. 


209 


from  them  unless  they  pay  them  such  wages."  It  is  well 
known  that  the  aborigines  of  this  country  offer  all  then- 
gifts  to  just  such  gods,  and  for  precisely  the  same  reason. 
The  Rev,  P.  O.  Johnson,  for  many  years  a  missionary 
among  the  Indians,  told  me  that,  being  overtaken  by  a 
storm  while  out  upon  a  certain  lake  in  an  open  boat,  an 
Indian  who  was  in  the  boat  with  him  concluded  that  his 
liod  was  angry,  and  was  about  to  appease  him  by  throwing 
lihn  his  blanket,  but  Mr.  J.  forbade  his  doing  so.  However, 
as  the  storm  continued,  and  they  were  in  imminent  danger, 
the  Indian  attempted  to  throw  out  his  blanket  several 
times,  asserting  that  this  was  the  only  way  they  could  be 
saved.  But  the  missionary,  knowing  that  if  the  blanket 
were  thrown  out,  and  they  should  afterward  reach  land, 
the  poor  Indian  would  give  his  god  credit  for  their  deUver- 
ance,  and  be,  perhaps,  hopelessly  confirmed  in  his  idolatry, 
interposed  his  authority,  and  confidently  afirrmed  that  the 
Christians'  God  Avould  bring  them  safe  to  land,  and  not 
ask  his  blanket  either.  And  so  he  did,  and  thus  gave 
evidence  to  this  poor  idolater  that  the  Christians'  God 
is  the  true  God,  and  besides  him  there  is  not  another. 
Such  were  "the  intuitive  beliefs"  of  the  natural  man 
in  ancient  Greece,  and  such  are  his  "intuitive  beliefs" 
to-day  as  he  wanders  through  the  unbroken  woods  of 
America,  the  wilderness  his  home,  the  skin  of  a  wild 
beast  his  covering,  and  an  idol  or  a  devil  his  god  ;  nor  does 
he  discover  the  sUghtest  evidence  of  an  ability  to  raise 
himself  in  any  sense  of  the  word  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  con- 
tinues to  sink  deeper  and  deeper  in  ignorance,  indolence, 
and  misery,  till  the  Hon,  the  wolf,  and  the  deer  would,  in 
many  respects,  be  degraded  by  being  compared  with  him. 
These  are  indisputable  facts,  before  which  the  teachings  of 
transcendentalism,  respecting  the  natural  man,  cannot  stand 
for  a  moment. 


210  watson's  theological  institutes 


After  describing  tlie  ignorance  and  idolatry  of  tlie 
ancient  heathen,  as  above,  Josephus  has  the  following  re- 
flections, which  we  think  worthy  of  notice  :  "  Wherefore, 
it  deserves  our  inquiry  what  should  be  the  occasion  of  this 
unjust  management,  and  of  these  scandals  about  the  Deity. 
And  ti'uly  I  suppose  it  to  be  derived  from  the  imperfect 
knowledge  the  heathen  legislators  had  at  first  of  the  true 
nature  of  God  ;  nor  did  they  explain  to  the  people  even  so 
far  as  they  did  comprehend  of  it ;  nor  did  they  compose 
the  other  parts  of  their  political  settlements  according  to 
it,  but  omitted  it  as  a  thing  of  very  little  consequence  ;  and 
they  gave  leave  both  to  the  poets  to  introduce  what  gods 
they  j^leased,  and  those  subject  to  all  sorts  of  passions,  and 
to  the  orators  to  procure  political  decrees  from  the  people 
for  the  admission  of  such  foreign  gods  as  they  thought 
pro2)er.  The  painters,  also,  and  statuaries  of  Greece  had 
herein  great  power,  as  each  of  them  could  contrive  a  shape 
[for  a  god],  the  one  to  be  formed  out  of  clay,  and  the 
other  by  making  a  bare  picture  of  such  a  one.  But  those 
workmen  tliat  were  principally  admired  had  the  use  of 
ivory  and  gold  as  the  constant  materials  for  their  new 
statues."  The  amount  is  this :  poets,  painters,  and  statu- 
aries invented  gods  at  pleasure,  fixed  their  shape,  and 
ascribed  to  them  the  vilest  passions ;  while  the  mechanic 
made  them  of  such  material  as  he  could  procure  ;  and  this 
would  vary  from  wood  to  gold,  according  to  his  means  and 
the  taste  and  means  of  the  purchaser.  But  all  the  design- 
ers and  mechanics  in  Greece  could  not  invent  and  make 
gods  enough  to  meet  .the  demands  of  the  people  ;  hence 
the  orators  had  a  chance  to  exert  their  oratorical  powers, 
which  they  did,  and  obtained  decrees  from  the  people  to 
import  foreign  gods  to  meet  the  increasing  demands  of  the 
people  !   This  terrible  state  of  things  among  the  masses  of 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


211 


the  people,  Josepbus  attributes  to  the  ignoi'auce  and  dis- 
honesty of  their  teachers  and  rulers.  The  blind  led  the 
blind,  and  both  fell  into  the  ditch,  the  horrible  ditch  of 
idolatry,  the  vilest  impurity,  and  the  deepest  misery ;  nor 
did  they  ever  rise  from  thence,  only^o  far  as  they  accepted 
the  supernatural  remedy  provided  by  the  merciful  Father 
of  the  spirits  of  aU  flesh. 


212 


watson's  theological  institutes 


CHAPTEE  yn. 

As  the  views  we  oppose  are  asserted  with  great  coufi- 
dence,  and  as  many  cling  to  them  with  great  tenacity,  espe- 
cially the  sceptical  classes,  we  must  be  permitted  to  dwell 
yet  longer  on  the  facts  of  human  history.  We  desire  espe- 
cially to  show  that  this  ignorance  of  God  was  not  confined 
to  the  iminstructed  and  imthinking  masses.  We  will  gather 
a  few  more  of  the  facts  of  history  from  Grotius.  Speaking 
of  Moses,  Strabo  says :  "  He  both  said  and  taught  that  the 
Egyptians  did  not  rightly  conceive  of  God  when  they  liken- 
ed him  to  wild  beasts  and  cattle ;  nor  the  Libyans,  nor  the 
Greeks,  in  resembling  him  by  a  human  shape  ;  for  God  is 
no  other  than  that  universe  which  surrounds  us  ;  the  earth, 
and  the  sea,  and  the  heaven,  and  the  world,  and  the  nature 
of  all  things,  as  they  are  called  by  us."  Poor  Strabo  !  he 
could  not  worship  the  gods  of  the  Egy])tians,  the  Libyans, 
or  the  Greeks ;  as  a  philosopher  he  could  not  bow  down  to 
them  nor  serve  them,  they  were  so  gross,  so  bad,  and, 
many  of  them,  at  least,  so  vile  withal.  Hence,  he  preferred 
the  earthy  the  sea,  and  t/ie  Tiature  of  all  things!  These  be 
thy  gods,  O  Strabo!  The  heathen,  as  Grotius  observes, 
worshipj^ed  evil  spirits  as  such  ;  also  human  beings  depart- 
ed, as  a  drunken  Bacchus,  an  effeminate  Hercules,  a  Romu- 
lus, unnatural  to  his  brother,  and  a  Jupiter  as  unnatural  to 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


213 


his  father.  They  worshipped  the  stars  and  elements ;  and 
various  kinds  of  brutes,  reptiles,  and  serpents.  Also  things 
that  have  no  being,  such  as  virtues  and  vices ;  yea,  and  dis- 
eases, such  as  fever,  &c.  TuUy  and  Livy  tell  us  of  temples 
being  dedicated  to  honor.  "Perhaps,"  says  Le  Clerc, 
"  some  may  explain  this  worship  of  the  heathen  in  this 
manner ;  as  to  say,  that  it  was  not  so  much  the  things 
which  were  commonly  signified  by  those  words  that  they 
worshipped,  as  a  certain  divine  power,  from  which  they 
flowed,  or  certain  ideas  in  the  divine  understanding."  .  .  . 
"  But  the  heathen  themselves  never  interpreted  this  mat- 
ter thus."  And  what  better  are  they  who  in  the  present 
day  recognize  no  God  but  nature.  "Nature,"  say  they, 
"  is  God,  and  God  is  nature."  And  with  them  nature  is 
everything,  and  everything  is  nature,  exce^jt  the  reUgion 
of  the  Bible:  that,  of  course,  is  quite  unnatural!  And  as 
to  dedicating  temples,  we  imitate  the  heathen  in  that  partic- 
ular also :  I  myself  was  present  when  a  certain  temple  was 
dedicated  "  To  Universal  Benevolence,"  here  in  Mchigan. 
True  we  have  not,  as  far  as  I  know,  dedicated  temples  to 
vices  and  diseases  ;  but  what  we  may  do  in  the  future  is, 
•of  course,  an  open  question.  "At  the  present  day,"  says 
Mr.  "Watson,  "  not  merely  a  few  speculative  philosophers  in 
the  heathen  world,  but  the  many  milHons  of  the  human  race 
who  profess  the  religion  of  Budhu,  not  only  deny  a 
Supreme  First  Cause,  but  dispute  with  subtilty  and  vehe- 
mence against  the  doctrine."  "  The  Buddhists,"  says  Dr. 
Davy,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  "VYatson,  "  do  not  beUeve  in  the 
existence  of  a  Supreme  Being,  self-existent  and  eternal,  the 
creator  and  preserver  of  the  universe  :  indeed,  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  they  believe  in  the  existence  and  operation  of  any 
cause  beside  fate  and  necessity,  to  which  they  seem  to  refer 
all  changes  in  the  moral  and  physical  world.   They  appear 


214  watson's  theological  institutes 


to  be  materialists  in  tlie  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  and  to 
have  no  notion  of  pure  spirit  or  mind.  Pram  and  hitta^ 
life  and  intelligence,  the  most  learned  of  them  appear  to 
consider  identical; — seated  in  the  heart,  radiating  from 
thence  to  dilferent  parts  of  the  body,  like  heat  from  a  fire, 
— uncreated,  without  beginning,  at  least  that  they  know  of; 
capable  of  being  modified  by  a  variety  of  circumstances, 
like  the  breath  in  different  musical  instruments  ; — and,  like 
a  vapor,  capable  of  passing  from  one  body  to  another  ; — 
and  like  a  flame  liable  to  be  extinguished  and  totally  anni- 
hilated. Gods,  demons,  men,  reptiles,  even  the  minutest 
and  most  imperfect  animalcules,  they  consider  as  similar 
beings,  formed  of  the  four  elements — heat,  air,  water,  and 
that  which  is  tangible,  and  animated  \)-^  praue  and  Mtta. 
They  believe  that  a  man  may  become  a  god  or  a  demon ; 
or  that  a  god  may  become  a  man  or  an  animalcule  ;  that 
ordinary  death  is  merely  a  change  of  form ;  and  that  this 
change  is  almost  infinite,  and  bounded  only  by  annihilation, 
which  they  esteem  the  acme  of  happiness !  " 

Men  who  had  such  erroneous  views  of  God  and  of  "  the 
origin  of  all  things,"  were,  as  might  be  expected,  equally 
in  the  dark  as  to  their  nature,  and  as  to  a  future  state. 
"  The  Greeks,"  says  Grotius,  "  who  derived  their  learning 
from  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians,  and  who  had  some 
hope  of  another  life  after  this,  spoke  very  doubtfully  con- 
cerning it,  as  is  evident  from  the  disputes  of  Socrates,  and 
from  the  writings  of  Tully,  Seneca,  and  others.  And 
though  they  searched  diUgently  for  arguments  to  prove  it, 
they  could  offer  nothing  of  certainty.  For  those  which 
they  allege  hold  generally  as  strong  for  beasts  as  they  do 
for  men.  Which  when  some  of  them  considered,  it  is  no 
wonder  that  they  imagined  that  souls  passed  out  of  men 
into  beasts,  and  out  of  beasts  into  men."    In  proof  of  this 


AKD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


215 


he  gives  us  numerous  testimonies,  not  from  the  ignorant 
and  uninstructed  masses,  but  from  the  brightest  lights 
among  the  ancient  heathen.  The  following  are  a  few  out 
of  many:  "  Now  I  would  have  you  understand,"  says  Plato 
in  his  Phajdon,  "  that  I  hope  to  go  amongst  good  men  ; 
but  I  will  not  be  too  positive  in  affirming  it."  ..."  If 
those  things  I  am  speaking  of  should  prove  true,  it  is  very 
well  to  be  thus  persuaded  concerning  them  ;  but  if  there  be 
nothing  after  death,  yet  I  shall  always  be  the  less  concern- 
ed for  the  present  things  of  this  Ufe  ;  and  this  my  ignorance 
will  not  continue  long, 'for  that  would  be  bad,  but  will 
shortly  vanish."  The  following  mournful  words  of  TuUy, 
as  foimd  in  his  first  Tusculan  question,  indicate  a  painful 
imcertainty  of  mind.  He  says:  "I  know  not  what  mighty 
thing  they  have  got  by  it,  who  teach  that,  when  the  time 
of  death  comes,  they  shall  entirely  perish  ;  which  if  it  should 
be  (for  I  do  not  say  anything  to  the  contrary),  what 
ground  of  joy  or  glorying  does  it  aiford  ?  "  Again :  "  Now 
suppose  the  soul  shoiild  perish  with  the  body,  can  there  be 
any  pain,  or  can  there  be  any  sense  at  all,  in  the  body  after 
death  ?  Nobody  -will  say  so."  It  is  evident  that,  after  the 
utmost  effort,  and  the  most  painful  eJfercises  of  mind,  this 
great  man,  like  many  others,  had  to  leave  it  an  imdecided 
question,  whether  "  the  soul  should  perish  with  the  body." 
These  testimonies  prove  the  truth  of  that  remark  of  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  which  occurs  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  and 
is  quoted  by  Grotius:  "The  philosophers  knew  nothing 
of  these  things,  nor  can  they  tell  what  the  soul  is.''  Such 
are  a  few  specimens  of"  the  intuitions  of  pure  reason,"  and 
such  are  "  the  primitive  judgments  "of  those  great  men,' 
Avhen  they  attempted  to  explore  the  spiritual  and  the  eter- 
nal world  by  the  hght  of  nature.  But  their  taper  was  so 
feeble,  and  the  darkness  so  dense,  that  they  finally  gave  up 


216 


Watson's  theological  institutes 


the  search  in  despair,  and  mournfully  waited  the  coming 
of  death  to  decide  the  great  question.  In  the  mean  time, 
they  placed  the  chief  good  and  end  of  man  in  sensual  pleas- 
ure. But  this  conclusion,  too,  was  far  from  being  satisfac- 
tory ;  hence  they  finally  reached  that  conclusion,  recorded  by 
Pliny,  in  his  natviral  history,  "  that  no  mortal  man  is  happy." 
No,  not  while  ignorant  of  himself,  of  God,  and  a  future 
state.  For  a  man  to  be  happy  in  such  a  state,  is  simply 
impossible.  But  "This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might 
know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou 
hast  sent."  "I  am  come,"  says  Jesus,  "that  they  might 
have  life.''  And  again,  "  Happy  are  the  pure  in  heart  for 
they  shall  see  God."  Life  and  happiness  come  by  the 
supernatural,  not  by  the  natural  /  "  Life  and  immortality 
are  brought  to  light  by  the  gospel."  That  thing  called  m- 
ture  has  no  salvation  for  fallen  man ;  hence  those  who 
reject  the  supernatural,  as  we  have  shown  the  philosophers 
did,  must,  like  them,  remain  in  ignorance  and  misery.  To 
turn  from  the  supernatural  to  the  natural,  is  to  leave 
*'  the  fountain  of  living  waters,"  for  the  purpose  of  manu- 
facturing "cisterns,  broken  cisterns,  that  can  hold  no 
water." 

The  following  quotation  from  Calmet  is  well  worthy  a 
place  just  here  ;  in  it  we  discover  the  fact  that  the  intui- 
tions of  the  natural  man  in  Judea  are  not  much  different 
from  those  of  the  natural  man  in  Greece.  We  see,  too, 
the  importance  of  the  apostolic  warning,  "  Beware  lest  any 
man  spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the 
tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  [or  elements]  of  this 
world,  and  not  after  Christ.  For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the 
fulness  of  the  godhead  bodily.  And  ye  are  complete  in 
him."  Observe,  Christ  and  this  philosophy  lead  in  op- 
posite directions,  so  that  he  who  follows  the  one  does  not 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


217 


follow  the  other.  Observe,  too,  that  when  Paul  connects 
with  this  caution  the  assertion,  "ye  are  complete  in  him," 
he  thereby  intimates  that  the  advocates  of  this  philoso- 
phy recognize  Christianity  as  incomplete,  and  that  they 
come  with  their  philosophy  to  perfect  what  is  lackmg  in 
the  Christian  system.  Of  this  we  have  a  striking  example 
in  the  teachings  which  have  called  forth  this  defence. 
Now,  then,  "  beware  "  of  this  error,  for  ye  are  complete  in 
Christ !  Christianity  is  a  perfect  system.  It  is  perfect,  as 
we  have  shown,  both  in  its  teachings  and  in  the  evidence 
by  which  it  proves  these  teachings  to  be  from  God.  It  is 
no  new  thing  for  error  to  be  introduced  and  propagated 
nnder  the  name  of  philosophy ;  therefore,  "  Beware  lest 
any  man  spoil  you  througl^  philosophy  and  vam  deceit." 
And  your  only  safety  is  in  holding  to  the  great  truth,  that 
ye  are  complete  in  Christ !  I  am  quite  aware  that  by  thus 
enforcing  the  apostolic  warning  I  shall,  no  doubt,  be  repre- 
sented by  a  certain  class  as  an  enemy  to  philosophy,  as 
"Watson  has  been,  and  as  Paul  was  by  the  philosophers  of 
his  day,  who  even  called  him  a  "  babbler,"  and  so  shall 
I  be  called,  in  all  probabiHty  ;  but  that  is  a  matter  of  little 
consequence.  I  am  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  error 
which  I  oppose,  and  of  the  truth  which  I  defend,  and  have 
made  \\\}  my  mind  to  oppose  the  one  and  defend  the  other 
at  the  risk  of  all  consequences.    Calmet  says : 

"  About  the  time  that  the  several  sects  of  philosophers 
were  formed  among  the  Greeks,  as  the  Academics,  the 
Peripatetics,  and  the  Stoics,  there  also  arose  among  the 
Jews  several  sects,  as  the  Essenes,  the  Pharisees,  and  the 
Sadducees.  The  Pharisees  had  some  resemblance  to  the 
Stoics,  the  Sadducees  to  the  Epicureans,  and  the  Essenes  to 
the  Academics.  The  Pharisees  were  proud,  vain,  and 
boasting,  like  the  Stoics ;  tlie  Sadducees,  who  denied  the 
10 


218  WATSOn's  theological  mSTITIITES 


immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  existence  of  spirits,  freed 
themselves  at  once,  like  the  Epicureans,  from  all  solicitude 
about  futurity ;  the  Essenes  were  more  moderate,  more 
simple  and  rehgious,  and,  therefore,  approached  nearer  to 
the  Academics.  .The  philosophers  against  whom  Paul  in- 
veighs in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  boasted  the  extent  of 
their  knowledge,  the  purity  of  their  morality,  the  eloquence 
of  their  writings,  the  strength  of  their  reasonings,  and  the 
subtilty  of  their  arguments.  Their  weaknesses  were  pride, 
curiosity,  presumption,  hypocrisy,  ambition.  They  ascribed 
everything  to  human  reason,  and  would  be  thought  supe- 
rior in  all  things.  Although  their  lives  were  disorderly, 
shameful,  and  even  injurious  to  human  nature,  yet  they 
would  pass  on  the  world  foi;  good  men.  To  them  the 
apostle  ojjposed  the  humility  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  the 
force  of  his  miracles,  the  purity  of  his  moral  doctrines,  the 
depth  of  his  mysteries,  and  the  evident  proofs  of  his  mis- 
sion." 

What  a  terrible  picture  is  here  given  of  those  philoso- 
phers !  "  They  ascribed  everything  to  human  reason." 
And  what  was  the  result  ?  What  did  "  the  intuitions  of 
pure  reason  "  do  for  them  ?  Did  they  in  this  way  become 
wise  and  good  ?  Just  the  reverse.  They  were  ^>roMf7, 
vain,  foolish,  sceptical,  if  not  atheists,  and  immoral  in  the 
last  degree.  What  Calmet  says  of  them  is  fully  confirmed 
by  Cicero  in  the  following  words,  quoted  by  Watson. 
Speaking  of  their  teachings,  he  says  :  "  Do  you  think  that 
these  things  liad  any  influence  upon  the  men  (a  very  few 
excejrted)  who  thought,  and  wrote,  and  disputed  about 
them  ?  Who  is  there  of  all  the  philosophers  whose  mind, 
life,  and  manners  were  conformable  to  right  reason  ?  Who 
ever  made  his  philosoi:)hy  the  law  and  rule  of  his  life,  and 
not  a  mere  show  of  his  wit  and  parts  ?    Who  observed  his 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED.  219 


own  instructions,  and  lived  in  obedience  to  his  own  pre- 
cepts ?  On  the  contrary,  many  of  them  were  slaves  to 
filthy  Insts,  many  to  pride,  covetousness,"  *fcc.  The  testi- 
mony of  Origen  is  to  the  same  effect.  "  I  know,"  says  that 
father,  "  of  but  one  Phaedo  and  one  Poleraon  throughout 
all  Greece  who  were  ever  made  better  by  their  philosophy." 
Such  was  the  natural  man,  and  such  his  natural  reason,  in 
philosophical  Greece ;  nor  was  he  any  better  even  in  the 
land  of  Israel.  Despite  Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  right 
in  the  face  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles,  the  Sadducees  were 
gross  materialists.  "The  Sadducees,"  says  Josephus, 
"  argue  that  the  soul  perishes  with  the  bpdy."  And  again, 
"  They  deny  the  soul's  immortality,  and  rewards  and  punish- 
ments in  another  life."  Jerome,  too,  as  quoted  by  Grotius, 
bears  testimony  to  the  same  £ict ;  he  says :  "  They  believed 
the  soul  perishes  with  the  body."  And  a  higher  authority 
than  either  says :  "  The  Sadducees  say  that  there  is  no 
resurrection,  neither  angel,  nor  spii-it."  Yet  in  the  face  of 
all  these  tacts  of  human  history  it  is  confidently  asserted 
that  "  The  human  intelligence  is  configured  and  correlated 
to  eternal  princii^les  of  order,  and  right,  and  good  as  they 
exist  in  the  Infinite  Intelligence."  That  "  God  has  imposed 
upon  his  intelligence  such  laws  of  thought  as  determine 
him  to  form  the  idea  of  God,  of  right  and  -svrong,  of  duty, 
and  of  accountability."  That  "  the  idea  of  God,  the  belief 
in  God,  may  be  justly  represented  as  xatfve  to  man." 
Tliat  "  it  springs  up  spontaneously,  as  a  jilant  from  its  germ ; 
it  will  well  uj)  from  the  depths  of  his  soul."  That,  "  ac- 
companying this  perception  of  the  immutable  distinction 
between  virtue  and  vice,  we  have  the  consciousness  of  its 
being  our  duty  to  avoid  the  one  and  perform  the  other. 
We  have  also  an  abiding  conviction  that  moral  good  is  re- 
wardable,  and  that  vice  merits  punishment.    And,  finally, 


220  watson's  tiikological  institutes 

we  have  a  conscious  apprehension  of  a  future  retribution.'''' 
Such,  it  is  asserted,  are  the  mental  and  moral  intuitions  of 
universai'  mankind.  All  this  is  native  to  man  ;  it  springs 
•up  spontaneously  from  the  depths  of  his  soul,  as  a  pilant 
from  its  germ!  "Thus,  while  Gentile  and  Jewish  philoso- 
phers are  denying  the  being  of  a  God,  the  existence  of 
angels  and  spirits,  the  resurrection  of  the  human  body,  fu- 
ture rewards  and  punishments,  and  asserting  the  eternity 
of  matter.  Christian  philosophers  are  asserting  as  above,  of 
universal  mankind !  And  they  are  equally  regardless  of 
the  fact  that  all  around  them  men  are  asserting  that  they 
have  no  souls,  and  going  to  and  fro  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  land  preaching  nosoulism.  And  be- 
cause Watson  does  not  unite  with  them  in  these  marvellous 
assertions,  does  not  ignore  but  assert  the  facts  of  human 
history,  these  philosophers  are  highly  displeased,  and  can 
ill  conceal  their  regrets.  Such  are  philosophers,  such  is 
philosophy,  such  is  human  nature,  such  the  natural  man. 
And  in  view  of  the  whole  I  certainly  feel  increasingly 
thankful  for  the  Bible,  and  for  Watson's  Institutes. 

To  the  numerous  fixcts  of  human  history  already  given 
we  will  add  the  experience  of  Mr.  Wesley,  as  recorded  by 
himself,  in  his  sermon,  entitled,  "  The  Case  of  Reason  Im- 
partially Considered."  Speaking  of  whaf  reason  can  not 
do,  he  says  it  cannot  produce  satisfactory  conviction  "  of 
an  invisible  eternal  world."  And  amongst  other  proofs  of 
this,  he  adduces  his  own  experience  tlms : 

"  Many  years  ago  I  found  the  truth  of  this  by  sad  ex- 
perience. After  carefully  heaping  up  the  strongest  argu- 
ments which  I  could  find,  cither  in  ancient  or  modern  au- 
thors, for  the  very  being  of  a  God,  and  (which  is  nearly 
connected  with  it)  the  existence  of  an  invisible  world  ;  I 
have  wandered  up  and  down,  musing  with  myself :  What 


AXD  TUE  BIBLE  DEFEXDED. 


221 


if  all  these  things  which  I  see  around  me,  this  earth  and 
heaven,  this  universal  frame,  has  existed  from  eternity  ? 
"What  if  that  melancholy  supposition  of  the  old  poet  be  the 
real  case  ? 

Olr]  Trep  (fivWuiv  yu'ei],  roirjSe  km  avSpojv. 

Wliat  if  the  generation  of  men  be  exactly  parallel  with  tlic 
generation  of  leaves  ?  If  the  earth  drops  its  successive  in- 
habitants, just  as  the  tree  drops  its  leaves  ?  What  if  that 
saying  of  a  great  man  be  really  true — 

'  Death  is  uotlung,  and  nothing  is  after  death '  ? 

How  am  I  sure  that  this  is  not  the  cgse  ;  that  I  have  not 
followed  cunningly  devised  fiibles  ?  And  I  have  pursued 
the  thought,  till  there  was  no  spirit  in  me ;  and  I  was 
ready  to  choose  strangling  rather  than  life. 

"  But  in  a  point  of  such  unspeakable  importance  do  not 
depend  upon  the  word  of  another ;  but  retire  for  a  while 
from  the  busy  world,  and  make  the  experiment  yourself. 
Try  whether  i/our  reason  will  give  you  a  clear,  satisfactory 
evidence  of  the  invisible  world.  After  tl^e  prejudices  of 
education  are  laid  aside,  produce  your  strong  reasons  for 
the  existence  of  this.  Set  them  all  in  array ;  silence  all  ob- 
jections, and  put  your  doubts  to  flight.  Alas!  you  cannot, 
with  all  your  imderstanding.  You  may  repress  them  for  a 
season.  But  how  quickly  will  they  rally  again,  and  attack 
you  with  redoubled  violence !  And  what  can  poor  reason 
do  for  your  deliverance  ?  The  more  vphemently  you 
struggle,  the  more  deeply  you  are  entangled  in  the  toils  ; 
and  you  find  no  way  to  escape. 

"  How  was  the  case  with  that  great  admii'er  of  reason, 
the  author  of  the  maxim  above  recited  ?  *  I  mean  the  fa- 
mous Mr.  Ilobbcs.  None  will  deny  that  he  had  a  strong  un- 


222 


watson's  titeological  institutes 


derstanding.  But  did  it  produce  in  him  a  full  and  satisfac- 
tory conviction  of  an  invisible  world?  Did  it  open  the 
eyes  of  his  understanding  to  see 

'  Beyond  the  bounds  of  this  diurnal  sphere '  ? 

Oh,  no  !  Far  from  it !  His  dying  words  are  never  to  be 
forgotten.  'Where  are  you  going,  sir,'  said  one  of  his 
friends.  He  answered,  '  I  am  taking  a  leap  in  the  dark ! ' 
and  died.  Just  such  an  evidence  of  the  invisible  world  can 
bare  reason  give  to  the  wisest  of  men  !  " 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  what  Mr.  Wesley  here 
says  of  himself,  is  precisely  what  Grotius  says  of  the  ancient 
philosophers.  Speakyig  "  of  another  life  after  this,"  he  says : 
"  And  though  they  searched  diligently  for  arguments  to 
prove  it,  they  could  ofter  nothing  of  certainty.  For  those 
which  they  allege  hold  generally  as  strong  for  beasts  as  they 
do  for  men,  wliich  when  some  of  them  considered,  it  is  no 
wonder  that  they  imagined  that  souls  passed  out  of  men 
into  beasts,  and  out  of  beasts  into  men."  The  following 
argument  of  Socrates  is  given  as  a  specimen  :  "  Tljat  which 
moves  of  itself  is  eternal."  According  to  this  argument 
eternal  beings  are  very  numerous  ! 

A  certain  missionary  gives  us  the  following  account 
of  the  aborigines  of  New  Zealand.  He  says  :  "  War  is 
all  their  glory ;  they  kill  and  eat  their  prisoners,  and  con- 
sider the  SujM-eme  Being  as  an  invisible  man-eater,  and 
regard  him  with  a  mixture  of  hatred  and  fear."  See 
the  tract  quoted  above.  Here  is  another  proof  that  "  the 
human  intelligence  is  configured  and  correlated  to  eter^ 
nal  principles  of  order,  and  right,  and  good  as  they 
exist  in  the  Infinite  Intelligence,"  and  that  "  the  idea  of 
God,  the  belief  in  God,  is  native  to  man ;  "  that  "  it  springs 
up  spontaneously  as  a  plant  from  its  germ,"  so  perfectly 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


223 


natural  is  it !  Thus  we  add  fact  to  fact,  knowing  the  ob- 
stinacy, not  to  say  fanaticism,  that  characterizes  the  error 
which  Ave  oppose.  We  wish,  also,  to  keep  before  the  mind 
the  fact  that  the  natural  man  gets  no  better,  only  so  far  as 
tlie  supernatural  remedy  is  apj^lied  and  accepted.  Despite 
all  the  laws  of  nature,  despite  all  your  systems  oinatural  the- 
ology, he  gets  worse  instead  of  better,  till  the  supernatural 
remedy  is  applied  and  accepted.  All  the  facts  within  the 
ichole  range  of  observation  are  xoith  us  in  this  matter,  and 
not  one  with  our  oppoiients  !  The  heathen  are  not  only  as 
bad  now  as  they  were  thousands  of  years  ago,  but  Avorse, 
and  becoming  worse;  the  god,  of  the  New  Zealander  is 
"  an  invisible  jnan-eater,"  and  though  those  poor  wretches 
worship  this  imaginary  monster  god,  they  both  fear  and 
hate  him.  Here  is  another  specimen  of  the  "  deductions 
from  the  mind's  OAvn  first  pi'inciples,"  which,  we  are  told, 
"  constitute  d  jjriori  reasoning."  It  is  a  painful  fact,  how- 
ever, that  those  poor  wretches,  with  all  "  the  facts  of  the 
universe "  and  their  own  "  mental  intuitions "  to  assist 
them,  never  reason  themselves  any  wiser  till  the  supernat- 
ural remedy  dissipates  the  darkness  and  quickens  them 
into  life ! 

The  fact  is,  it  has  been  the  great  eiTor  of  philosophers, 
both  ancient  and  modern,  to  ignore  or  reject  the  super- 
natural, and  attempt  to  account  for  and  explain  all  the 
phenomena  that  are  discoverable,  whether  in  mind  or  mat- 
ter, by  what  are  called  natural  laios,  and  to  rely  upon  rea- 
son alone  in  their  investigations,  as  though  it  were  beneath 
the  philosopher  to  accept  of  the  help  offered  by  revelation. 
Hence  many  of  their  efforts  have  been  perfectly  abortive, 
and  worse  than  abortive ;  not  only  because  the  work 
which  they  assigned  to  reason  was  beyond  the  poAver  of 
reason,  but  also,  because  much  of  the  phenomena  which 


224:  WATSOn's  theological  mSTITUTES 


they  uudertook  to  explain  upon  natural  principles  was  the 
work  of  supernatural  poAver.  Suppose,  for  instance,  a 
man  should  recognize  as  natural  phenomena  the  budding 
of  Aaron's  rod,  and  its  bearing  fruit  the  same  night ;  the 
falling  of  the  manna ;  Christ  feeding  the  five  thousand  at 
one  time,  and  sevpn  thousand  at  another  ;  his  stilling  the 
winds  and  the  waves  by  the  utterance  of  a  word  ;  and  by 
a  word  giving  sight  to  the  blind,  health  to  the  leper,  and  life 
to  the  dead ;  and  impose  upon  his  reason  the  task  of  ex- 
plaining all  this  by  what  are  called  natural  laws  ;  who 
does  not  see  the  result  of  such  mistakes  ?  That  which  he 
recognized  as  natural  was  supernatural^  and  the  work 
which  he  assigned  to  reason  was  absolutely  beyond  the 
power  of  reason.  Hence  his  efforts  would  not  only  be  a 
failure,  but  would  be  puerile  and  even  ridiculous.  And 
just  such  have  been  the  efforts  of  philosophers  in  reference 
to  other  matters  equally  supernatural^  though  recognized 
as  natural.  And  theologians,  as  well  as  philosophers,  have 
fallen  into  the  same  mistakes,  and  both  philosophy  and  re- 
ligion have  suffered  in  consequence.  A  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  teachings  which  we  oppose  in  this  defence,  and 
of  the  objections  raised  against  the  teachings  of  Richard 
Watson,  will  convince  any  one  that  they  are  characterized 
by  these  mistakes,  viz.,  the  not  discriminating  between  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural^  between  what  ^s,  and  what 
is  not^  the  work  of  reason.  It  is  by  the  supernatural  that 
fallen  man  is  raised,  from  first  to  last,  as  we  formerly  show- 
ed. It  is  by  the  supernatural  that  his  dead  soul  is  quick- 
ened, and  his  blind  eyes  oj^ened.  And  it  is  by  the  super- 
natural that  the  spirtnal  and  the  eternal  worlds  are  reveal- 
ed to  him.  Hence,  all  attemjits  to  account  for  and  explain 
these  and  similar  supernatural  phenomena  by  what  are 
called  natural  laws,  must  ever  prove  an  utter  failure.  For 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


225 


the  same  reason,  whoever  expects  these  supernatural  and 
mighty  works  to  be  accomplished  by  what  are  called  riatu- 
ral  laws,  will  surely  be  disappointed.  The  whole  system  of 
grace  which  lias  been  introduced  for  the  salvation  of  fallen 
\s  supernatural :  there  was  no  natural  law  by  which 
foi-feited  life  could  be  restored  to  fallen  man.  Hence  St. 
Paul  says :  "  If  there  tiad  been  a  law  given  which  could 
have  given  life,  verily  righteousness  should  have  been  by 
the  law."  It  is  for  want  of  recognizing  this  great  truth 
that  men  become  infidels,  who,  it  is  well  known,  are  always 
talking  about  nature^  and  will  see  nothing  beyond,  above, 
or  superior  to,  nature.  While  Paul  is  saying,  "  I  determin- 
ed to  know  nothing  among  you,  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him 
crucified,"  they  seem  to  say,  "  We  are  determined  to  know 
nothing  among  you  but  nature."  It  is  a  striking  and  very 
important  characteristic  of  Mr.  Watson  that  he  carefully 
distinguishes  between  the  natural  and  the  sujyernatural, 
between  what  is  and  what  is  not  the  legitimate  Avork  of 
reason  ;  and  in  these  particulars  also  his  writings  and  those 
of  his  opponents  present  a  very  striking  contrast. 

As  the  error  of  ignoring,  or  denying,  the  supernatural., 
and  recognizing  the  natural  only,  has  been  a  great  error  in 
all  ages,  and  is  now,  it  seems  to  fTs,  a  growing  error,  we 
Avill  dwell  uj^on  it  yet  a  Uttle  longer ;  especially  as  those 
who  fall  mto  this  error  are  almost  sure  to  fall  into  the  other 
errors  which  we  have  specified. 

We  have  an  illustration  and  confirmation  of  these  state- 
ments in  the  writings  of  modern  geologists ;  they  seem 
determined  to  account  for  and  explain  all  the  phenomena 
which  come  under  their  notice,  by  what  are  called  natural 
laics.  In  this  also  their  writings  are  a  perfect  contrast  to 
those  of  Moses  and  AYatson,  both  of  whom  recognize  and 
10* 


226  VatSON's  theological  mSTITUTES 

specify  a  supernatural  power  as  the  cause  of  much  of  the 
phenomena  referred  to. 

We  have  already  seen  how  the  ancient  philosophers 
attempted  to  tell  us  how  the  earth  was  formed,  and  how 
its  inhabitants  originated.  They  all  commenced  with 
chaos, — 

"  All  things  that  are  sprang  from  chaos  vast." 

As  to  living  creatures,  whether  mice  or  men,  some  traced 
their  origin  to  a  maggot,  and  some  to  an  egg,  while  others 
were  satisfied  to  give  us  a  less  specific  account,  thus : 

"  Heaven  and  earth  were  at  first  of  one  form, 
But  when  their  different  parts  were  separate, 
Thence  sprang  beasts,  fowls,  and  all  the  shoals  of  fish, 
Nay,  even  men  themselves." 

Again  :  "  N'ature  first  formed  all  sorts  of  animals  perfect ; 
and  then  ordained,  by  a  perpetual  law,  that  their  succession 
should  be  continued  by  procreation." 

Diodorus  Siculus,  as  quoted  by  Grotius,  gives  us,  as  his 
own  views  and  those  of  preceding  philosoishers,  the  follow- 
ing :  "  In  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  all  things,  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  had  the  same  form  and  appearance, 
their  natures  being  niixed  together  ;  but  afterward,  the 
parts  separating  from  one  another,  the  world  received  that 
form  in  which  Ave  now  behold  it,  and  the  air  a  continual 
motion.  The  fiery  part  ascended  highest,  because  the 
lightness  of  its  nature  caused  it  to  tend  upward,  for  which 
reason  the  sun  and  multitude  of  stars  go  in  a  continual 
round ;  the  muddy  and  grosser  part,  together  Avith  the 
fluid,  sunk  down,  by  reason  of  its  heaviness.  And  this, 
rolling  and  turning  itself  continually  round,  from  its  moist- 
ure, produced  the  sea,  and  from  the  more  solid  parts  pro- 
duced the  earth,  as  yet  very  soft  and  miry  ;  but  when  the 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


227 


sun  began  to  shine  upon  it,  it  grew  firm  and  bard  ;  and  the 
warmth  causing  the  superficies  of  it  to  ferment,  the  moist- 
ure, in  many  places  sweUing,  put  forth  certain  putrid  sub- 
stances, covered  with  skins,  such  as  we  now  see  in  the 
fenny  moorish  grounds,  when,  the  earth  being  cool,  the  air 
happens  to  grow  warm,  not  by  a  gradual  change,  but  on  a 
sadden.  Afterward  the  foremcntioned  substances,  in  the 
moist  places,  having  received  life  from  the  heat  in  that 
manner,  were  nourished  in  the  night  by  what  fell  from 
the  clouds  surrounding  them,  and  in  the  day  they  Avere 
strengthened  by  the  heat.  Lastly,  when  these  foetuses 
were  come  to  their  full  growth,  and  the  membranes  by 
which  they  were  enclosed  broke  by  the  heat,  all  sorts  of 
creatures  immediately  appeared  ;  those  that  were  of  a  hot- 
ter nature  became  birds,  and  mounted  uj}  high  ;  those  that 
were  of  a  grosser  and  earthy  nature,  became  creeping 
things,  and  such  like  creatures,  which  are  confined  to  the 
earth ;  and  those  which  were  of  a  watery  nature  imme- 
diately betook  themselves  to  a  jilace  of  the  like  quality,  and 
were  called  fish." 

Euripides,  whom  Ave  quoted  formerly,  gives  us  a  similar 
account  of  the  origin  of  animals,  only  in  his  specification  he 
very  wisely  includes  "  men  themselves "  !  and  closes  by 
saying,  "  This,  therefore,  is  the  account  we  have  received 
of  the  original  of  things."  And  after  adducing  the  facts  of 
observation  in  proof  of  all  this,  such  as  those  already  ad- 
duced, he  closes  thus  :  "  Now,  if  after  the  earth  has  been 
thus  hardened,  and  the  air  does  not  preserve  its  original 
temperature,  yet  some  animals  are  notwithstanding  pro- 
duced;  from  hence,  they  say,  it  is  manifest  that  in  the 
beginning  all  sorts  of  living  creatures  were  produced  out 
of  the  earth  in  this  manner." 

Now  we  could  easily  show,  as  Grotius,  Le  Clerc,  Wat- 


228  Watson's  theological  institutes 


son,  and  others  have  ah-eady  shown,  that  all  these  accounts 
of  "  the  origin  of  all  things  "  are  gross  perversions  of  the 
Mosaic  account ;  but  our  purpose  just  here  is  to  call  atten- 
tion to  a  single  fact,  namely  this,  that  in  all  these  accounts 
there  is  no  recognition  of  the  supernatural — all  is  natural ; 
that  is,  everything  was  produced,  "  in  the  beginning,"  by 
what  are  called  natural  laws,  as  now  understood.  In  a 
word,  there  is  no  God  recognized  from  first  to  last — all  is 
Nature  !  So  much  for  the  geological  theories,  or  what  you 
please  to  call  them,  of  olden  times.  Now  we  are  going  to 
show  that  the  theories  of  many  modern  geologists  are  not 
a  whit  better  ;  and  we  are  strongly  inclined  to  believe  that 
they  have  many  of  their  ideas  from  those  ancient  philos- 
phers,  though  they  have  not  acknowledged  their  indebted- 
ness to  them. 

After  examining  the  ancient  theories,  we  are  more  than 
ever  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  the  following  remarks 
of  Paley,  which  we  introduce  here,  not  only  because  they 
express  our  own  views,  and  that  better  than  we  could  our- 
selves, but  also  because  Watson  makes  them  his  own,  and 
quotes  them  as  "just  remarks  on  some  modern  schemes  of 
atheism." 

"  I  much  doubt,"  says  the  doctor,  "  whether  the  new 
schemes  have  advanced  anything  upon  the  old,  or  done 
more  than  changed  the  terras  of  the  nomenclature.  For 
instance,  I  could  never  sec  the  difference  between  the  anti- 
quated system  of  atoms  and  Buffon's  organic  molecules. 
This  philosopher,  having  made  a  planet  by  knocking  off 
from  the  sun  a  piece  of  melted  glass,  in  consequence  of  the 
stroke  of  a  comet,  and  having  set  it  in  motion  by  the  same 
stroke,  both  round  its  own  axis  and  the  sun,  finds  his  next 
difficulty  to  be,  how  to  bring  plants  and  animals  upon  it. 
In  order  to  solve  this  difficulty,  we  are  to  suppose  the  uni- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


229 


verse  replenished  with  particles  endowed  with  life,  but 
without  organization  or  senses  of  their  own;  and  endoAved 
also  with  a  tendency  to  marshal  themselves  into  organized 
forms.  The  concourse  of  these  particles,  by  virtue  of  this 
tendency,  but  without  intelligence,  will,  or  direction  (for  I 
do  not  find  that  any  of  these  qualities  are  ascribed  to  them), 
has  produced  the  living  forms  which  we  now  see."  Now 
we  only  ask  the  reader  to  compare  this  theory  of  Bulfon 
with  that  of  Diodorus,  given  above,  and  we  are  sure  he 
will  find  that  the  former  has  not  improved  upon  the  latter, 
no,  not  in  the  least.  Bulfon  supposes  the  universe  replen- 
ished with  particles  endowed  Avith  life,  but  does  not  at- 
tempt to  tell  us  where  the  particles  came  from,  or  how  the 
life  was  produced.  Diodorus  represents  the  sun  as  pro- 
ducing fermentation,  and  then  putrid  substances  in  the 
muddy  and  marshy  places  on  the  earth's  surface;  and, 
finally,  by  the  process  described,  "all  sorts  of  creatures 
immediately  appeared."  "We  doubt  not  that  the  reader 
will  give  the  preference  to  the  ancient  over  the  modern 
philosopher.  This  much,  however,  must  be  admitted  :  there 
is  no  God  in  either  system,  nor  are  we  told  where  the  sun 
and  the  earth  came  from  in  the  one  case,  nor  Avhere  the 
comet  and  the  sun  came  from  in  the  other,  nor  need  we 
inquire  :  we  know  they  believed  in  the  eternity  of  matter  ! 

But  the  doctor  goes  on:  "Very  few  of  the  conjectures 
which  philosophers  hazard  upon  these  subjects,  have  more 
of  pretension  in  them  than  the  challenging  you  to  show 
the  direct  impossibility  of  the  hypothesis.  In  the  present 
example  there  seemed  to  be  a  por^itive  objection  to  the 
whole  scheme  upon  the  very  face  of  it ;  which  was,  that  if 
the  case  were  as  here  represented,  neio  combinations  ought 
to  he  perpetually  taking  place  ;  new  plants  and  animals,  oi 
organized  bodies  which  are  neither,  ought  to  be  starting  np 


230  Watson's  theological  institutes 


before  our  eyes  every  day.  For  this,  however,  our  philoso- 
pher has  an  answer.  While  so  many  j^lants  and  animals 
are  already  in  existence,  and  consequently,  so  many  '  in- 
ternal moulds,'  as  he  calls  them,  are  prepared  and  at  hand, 
the  organic  particles  run  into  these  moulds,  and  are  em- 
ployed in  supplyhig  an  accession  of  substance  to  them,  as 
well  for  their  growth  as  for  their  i^rojaagation  ;  by  which 
means  things  keep  their  ancient  course.  But,  says  the  same 
philosopher,  should  any  general  loss  or  destruction  of  the 
present  constitution  of  organized  bodies  take  place,  the 
particles,  for  want  of  '  moulds  '  into  which  they  might  enter, 
would  run  into  different  combinations,  and  replenish  the 
waste  with  new  species  of  organized  substances. 

"  But  these  wonder-working  instruments,  these  '  internal 
moulds,'  what  are  they,  after  all  ?  What,  when  examined, 
but  a  name  without  signification?  Unintelligible,  if  not 
self-contradictory ;  at  best  differing  in  nothing  from  the 
'  essential  forms  '  of  the  Greek  philosophy  ?  One  short 
sentence  of  Buffon's  works  exhibits  his  scheme  as  follows : 
'  When  this  nutritious  and  prolific  matter,  which  is  diffused 
throughout  all  nature,  passes  through  the  iiiternal  moulds 
of  an  animal  or  vegetable,  and  finds  a  proper  matrix  or 
receptacle,  it  gives  rise  to  an  animal  or  vegetable  of  the 
same  species ' ! "  In  all  this  there  is  no  God,  and,  conse- 
quently, no  common  sense.  Such  are  the  teachings  of  the 
philosojAer  who  was  so  much  admired  by  Rousseau,  that 
the  latter,  on  entering  the  study  of  the  former,  bowed  down 
and  kissed  the  thresliold  of  the  door.  They  were  true 
worshippers  of  nature  and  each  other,  but  could  not  admire 
the  Bible  or  worshij)  its  Author  ! 

"Another  system,"  continues  the  doctor,  "  which  has 
lately  been  brought  forward,  and  with  mucli  ingenuity,  is 
that  of  appetencies.    The  principle,  and  the  short  account 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


231 


of  the  theory,  is  this :  pieces  of  soft,  ductile  matter,  being 
endued  with  projiensities  or  appetencies  for  particular  ac- 
tions, -would,  by  continual  endeavors,  carried  on  through  a 
long  series  of  generations,  work  themselves  gradually  into 
suitable  forms ;  and  at  length  acquire,  though  perhaps  by 
obscure  and  almost  imperceptible  improvements,  an  organ- 
ization fitted  to  the  action  wliich  their  respective  propensi- 
ties led  them  to  exert.  A  piece  of  animated  matter,  for 
examjjle,  that  was  endued  with  a  propensity  to  fly^  though 
ever  so  shapeless,  though  no  other  we  will  suppose  than 
a  round  ball,  to  begin  with,  would  in  a  course  of  ages,  if 
not  in  a  million  of  years,  perhaps  in  a  hundred  million  of 
years  (for  our  theorists,  having  eternity  to  disjaose  of,  are 
never  sparing  in  time),  accpire  wings.  The  same  tendency 
to  locomotion  in  an  aquatic  animal,  or  rather  in  an  animated 
lump  which  might  happen  to  be  surrovmded  with  water, 
would  end  in  the  production  of  fins  ;  in  a  living  substance, 
confined  to  the  solid  earth,  would  put  out  lecjs  and  feet  y  or 
if  it  took  a  different  turn,  would  break  the  body  into  ring- 
lets, and  conclude  by  crawling  upon  the  ground." 

The  reader  is  requested  to  notice  that  as  yet  no  God  is 
recognized,  still  the  supernatural  is  excluded,  all  is  natural^ 
or,  more  properly  speaking,  all  is  unnatural.  Observe,  too, 
all  these  philosophers  commence  with  mere  matter,  and,  of 
course,  continue  and  end  in  mere  matter;  for  the  stream 
could  not  rise  above  its  source.  But  though  they  all  com- 
mence with  matter,  they  differ  considerably  as  to  the  form 
in  which  they  found  that  matter  "  in  the  beginning."  Some 
commenced  with  a  sun  and  a  comet,  the  latter  striking 
the  earth  from  the  former  in  the  shaj^e  of  a  huge  mass  of 
molten  glass.  Others  tell  us  "  the  earth  existed  originally 
as  a  thin  vapor  or  nebula,  like  that  of  which  comets  are 
composed ; "  then  "  it  cooled  down  to  a  fluid  form,  as  steam 


232  Watson's  theologicai,  issTiirTES 


condenses  to  water,"  and  "  the  process  of  cooling  contin- 
ued," we  are  told,  "  until  a  crust  formed  upon  flie  surface 
of  the  fluid  sphere,  as  ice  forms  upon  water  ;  "  and  "  as  the 
cooling  still  proceeded,  the  water  which  had  before  existed 
as  steam,  condensed  and  covered  the  whole  earth."  We 
have  neither  time  nor  patience  to  follow  our  geological  savans 
through  the  all  but  interminable  process  that  followed ;  the 
heating,  cooUng,  swelling,  contracting,  boiling,  steaming, 
condensing,  and  thundering  process  was  long  as  Avell  as  ter- 
rific, but  the  process  which  followed  this,  it  is  presumed,  was 
still  longer.  This,  however,  is  a  matter  of  no  moment,  for 
"  our  theorists,"  as  Paley  observes,  "  having  eternity  to  dis- 
pose of,  are  never  spai-ing  in  time."  It  is  acknowledged 
that  "the  process  of  deposition  must,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  have  proceeded  with  extreme  slowness,  and  it  is 
obvious  that  very  long  periods  of  time,  amounting  to  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  years,  must  have  been  required  for 
its  completion."  And  we  are  very  gravely  told  that  "  no 
human  beings  existed  during  the  immense  periods  which 
these  formations  represent."  Surely  it  was  not  necessary  to 
tell  us  that  human  beings  did  not  exist  on  the  earth  while  it 
was  a  sphere  of  liquid  fire,  nor  yet,  whOe  it  was  enveloj^ed 
in  a  body  of  steam  so  great  that  when  it  was  condensed, 
that  which  before  was  a  sjihere  of  liquid  fire  was  lost  in  a 
shoreless  ocean  !  Nor  do  we  see  how  such  a  body  of fire  or 
water  could,  with  any  propriety,  be  called  "  the  earth," 
though  Moses,  let  it  be  remembered,  calls  it  "  the  earth," 
from  the  time  it  was  created  ;  not  only  after,  but  before, 
and  during  the  work  of  the  six  days  !  "  Nor  do  we  think 
it  could,  with  any  propriety,  be  called  "  the  earth  "  while  it 
existed  "  as  a  thin  vapor  or  nebula,"  as  others  say  it  did  ; 
nor  need  Ave  be  told  that  hum.an  beings  did  not  exist  during 
that  period ;  nor  do  we  see  how  there  could  be  vegetable 


AlfD'IrilE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


233 


or  animal  life  of  any  kind  during  these  periods ;  so  that 
all  these  changes,  and  others,  which  we  are  told  occupied 
countless  millions  of  years,  must  have  taken  place  before 
wliat  Moses  calls  the  third  day,  for  on  that  day  the  earth 
brought  forth  ffrass,  herh^  and  fmit  tree.  Now  these 
clianges,  which  our  theorists  say  occupied  unknown  and  in- 
conceivable periods  of  time,  Moses  says  occupied  six  days  ! 
Those  of  our  modern  geologists  who  have  not  completely 
thrown  oft*  the  aiithority  of  the  Scriptures,  are  very  much 
annoyed  by  this  Moses ;  they  try  hard  to  get  hmi  to  accept 
of  their  numerous  and  coutradictory  theories,  but  it  is  to 
no  purpose  ;  he  remains  unchanged  and  unchangeable.  It 
is  no  use  contending  with  him ;  what  he  says  is  law  ! 
Pharaoh  found  that  out,  and  so  will  all  that  contend  with 
him,  rest  assured  of  it.  However,  they  try  hard  to  per- 
suade him  to  change  his  six  days  into  countless  milUons  of 
years,  and  his  Sabbath  into  a  period  of  corresponding 
length;  but  he  seems  to  have  no  sjTnpathy  with  their 
theories,  for  although  it  is  essential  to  their  geological 
systems,  he  will  not  grant  them  this  single  request,  though 
they  try  hard  to  persuade  him  that  it  would  be  quite  con- 
sistent with  his  system  to  do  so  ;  but  he  does  not  see  it  so  ; 
though  they  have  used  many  arguments  like  the  folloM'ing : 
"  How  is  the  great  age  of  the  world  before  man  was  cre- 
ated, which  geology  requires,  consistent  with  the  Bible  ac- 
count that  the  work  of  creation  was  begun  and  completed 
in  six  days?  The  days  of  the  Mosaic  account  should  proba- 
bly be  regarded  as  long  '  periods  '  (an  interpretation  which 
the  original  language  of  the  Bible  admits),  and  the  even- 
ings and  mornings  as  the  beginnings  and  endings  of  these 
periods."  Moses,  however,  contends  that  he  is  giving  a 
simple  narrative,  and  that  he  means  what  he  says.  More- 
over, he  commands  men  to  work  six  days,  and  rest  one  in 


234 


avatson's  theological  institutes 


every  seven,  and  so  do  the  sacred  writers  who  follow  him, 
and  they  will  not  be  understood  to  command  us  to  work 
several  millions  of  years  without  stopping,  and  then  rest, 
say,  one  million  years,  and  enjoin  this  upon  us  by  all  the 
sanctions  of  the  law,  while,  at  the  same  time,  they  tell  us 
that  the  average-  length  of  human  life  is  threescore  years 
and  ten  ;  nor  will  Moses  admit  that  he  uses  the  word  day 
in  the  narrative  of  the  creation  in  a  sense  dilFerent  from 
that  in  which  he  uses  it  in  the  law  of  the  Sabbath.  And 
as  to  the  plea  that  "  geology  requires  "  the  word  to  be  thus 
understood,  Moses  contends  that  his  geology  requires  noth- 
ing of  the  sort,  for  God  spalce^  and  it  was  done ;  he  com- 
manded, and  it  stood  fast.  Moreover  he  says,  that  both 
his  common  sense  and  his  honesty  require  that  he  should  be 
understood  to  mean  just  what  he  says,  and  that  he  cannot 
involve  himself  simply  to  give  sanction  to  their  geological 
tlieories,  Avhich  he  knows  are  not  true !  Thus,  not  only 
Moses,  but  all  the  inspired  writers,  are  unalterably  opposed 
to  all  those  geological  whims. 

But  to  return :  we  were  speaking  of  the  dilFerent 
shapes  or  states  in  which  different  geologists  have  assumed 
the  earth  to  be  when  they  commenced  their  different 
theories  of  its  future  formation.  Many  of  them,  like  the 
ancient  heathen,  commence  with  a  chaotic  ocean  containing 
the  elements  of  all  things.  To  this,  too,  we  must  object 
the  fact  that  Moses  calls  our  globe  "  the  earth"  from  the 
moment  it  was  created.  But  various  interpretations  have 
been  given  to  the  original  Hebrew  words,  which  in  the 
common  version  are  rendered  without  form  and  void. 
"  The  Seventy,"  says  Watson,  "  render  the  phrase  tohu 
vahohu,  aoparos,  Kai  aKaracTKivacno^,  invisible  and  unfurnish- 
ed.^'' Invisible,  because  God  had  not  yet  said,  "  Let  there  he 
light  ^  "  and  unfurnished,  because  he  had  not  yet  said,  "  Let 


AST>  THE  BIBLE  DEFEJJDED. 


235 


the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielduig  seed,  and  the 
fruit  tree  yielding  fruit  after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in 
itself,  ui>on  the  earth."  Xor  had  he  yet  created  any  liv- 
ing being.  Hence  the  earth,  as  yet,  was  both  invisible 
and  unfurnished.  "  It  is  Avouderful,"  says  Roseumuller,  as 
quoted  by  Mr.  "Watson,  "  how  so  many  interjjreters  could 
imagine  that  a  chaos  was  described  in  the  words  tohit  vabo- 
hu.  This  notion  unquestionably  took  its  origin  from  the 
fictions  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  poets,  which  were  trans- 
ferred by  those  interjjreters  to  Moses."  "  Those  fictions 
ground  themselves,"  observes  Mr.  Watson,  "  upon  traditions 
received  from  the  earliest  times ;  but  the  additions  of 
poetic  fancy  are  not  to  be  appUed  to  interpret  the  Scrip- 
tures." Mr.  Watson  observes  further,  after  objecting  to 
various  geological  notions  :  "  If  such  interi^retatious  of  the 
Mosaic  account  cannot  be  allowed,  the  decisions  of  Scrip- 
ture and  some  of  the  modern  speculations  in  geology  must 
be  left  directly  to  oj^pose  each  other,  and  their  hostility  on 
this  point  cannot  be  softened  by  the  advocates  of  accom- 
modation." 

But  that  to  which  more  especially  we  desire  to  call 
attention  just  here,  is  the  notion  that  this  shoreless  ocean, 
holding  in  solution  the  materials  of  the  future  earth,  if  not 
of  the  universe,  was  left  to  sport  in  the  fields  of  space, 
rolling  and  tossing  its  waves  with  terrific  fury,  till  by  the 
slow  process  of  deposition^  stratification,  crystallization, 
and  2i<it>'ifi<icition,  our  earth  was  produced  and  kft  as  it  is, 
and  all  this  by  the  wondei-ful  power  of  that  indefinable 
thing,  the' infidel  god.  Nature.  In  aU  this  process,  observe, 
the  sapernaturcd  is  excluded,  and  God  is  not  recognized  at 
all !  For  all  these  geologists  can  get  along  very  well  Avith- 
out  God,  and  still  better  without  Moses  ! 

The  following  quotation  from  "The  London  Encyclo- 


236  WATSON's  THEOLOGICAX  rNSTITDTES 


ptedia  "  will  show  where  Dr.  Ilutton  and  his  followers  com- 
mence their  geological  theory  ;  it  will  also  show  how  they 
also  can  construct  a  world  without  any  power  but  that  of 
nature :  "  Dr.  Ilutton  does  not  go  back  to  chaos  to  lay  the 
foundation  of  his  habitable  woi-ld,  nor  does  he  borrow 
much  assistance  in  constructing  his  fabric  from  chemical 
attractions.  He  rests  upon  a  pre-existing  continent,  out  of 
the  ruins  of  which  our  jn-esent  dry  land  was  formed  and 
arranged  principally  by  mechanical  means.  The  portion 
of  the  globe  which  we  now  possess  was,  according  to  his 
hypothesis,  the  bottom  of  the  sea  when  the  older  continent 
was  decaying  to  form  it ;  this  older  continent  was  then,  of 
course,  immersed ;  and,  lest  we  should  be  alarmed  at  the 
recurrence  of  a  similar  catastrophe  to  this  scene  of  our  in- 
terests, we  are  told  that  it  will  be  followed  by  a  similar 
renovation.  Thus,  as  one  continent  descends  another  rises, 
like  the  opposite  scales  of  a  balance  ;  and  in  the  resources  of 
this  system  that  order  of  organic  nature  is  supposed  to  be 
traced  by  which  the  continued  existence  of  the  different 
races  is  secured,  not  by  the  perpetuity  of  the  individual, 
but  by  the  successive  reproduction  of  the  kind.  Our  pres- 
ent world  is  thus  one  in  an  indefinite  series  of  worlds  which 
have  existed  in  times  i')ast,  and  which  are  destined  in  fu- 
ture to  appear  ;  and  all  the  less  obvious  or  more  striking 
changes  which  we  witness  are  steps  in  the  progress  of 
mighty  revolutions,  to  which  the  imagination  can  set  no 
limits,  either  with  regard  to  duration  or  magnitude."  Still 
no  God  is  recognized,  nothing  sitjyernatural  is  admitted,  all 
is  as  natural  as  the  flowing  of  a  river,  or  the  crumbling  of 
its  banks,  or  the  growth  of  a  plant.  And  it  is  more  than 
intimated  that  thus  it  has  been  in  all  time  or  eternity  past, 
and  will  be  in  eternity  to  come  ! 

The  Neptunian  or  Wernerian  system  commences  with 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


237 


chaos,  or  a  vast  ocean  with  the  materials  of  the  future  earth 
in  soUitiou,  and  proceeds  on  the  jjrinciple  of  dejwsition  and 
fonnation,  as  described  above,  till  "  the  waters  subsided 
and  left  the  dry  land  for  the  support  of  animals  and  vege- 
tables." The  waters,  however,  "from  some  inscrutable 
causes,  again  rose  and  resumed  their  former  bed,  and  a 
second  time  a  chaotic  flliid  invested  the  cr«st  of  the  earth. 
And,  in  the  words  of  Thomson, 

'  A  shoreless  ocean  tumbled  round  the  globe.' 

This  rise  of  the  waters  Werner  finds  necessary  to  account 
for  the  position  and  structure  of  the  secondary  trap  forma- 
tions, so  strangely  attending  or  overlying  the  other  second- 
ary strata."  As  there  is  nothing  in  the  processes  here 
described  very  different  from  some  previously  given,  it  will 
suffice  to  add  the  following  quotations  :  "  When  the  waters 
had  retired  so  much  as  to  permit  the  formation  of  this  class 
of  rocks,  and  had  ceased  to  cover  them,  the  crust  of  the 
earth  was  prepared  for  supporting  animal  and  vegetable 
life,  and  received  from  the  hand  of  nature  families  of  both 
in  abundance."  See  "  London  Encylopajdia,"  article  Geo- 
logj'.  Still  there  is  nothing  siq)ernatural  /  God  is  not  rec- 
ognized in  all  this — Nature  does  all ! 

Watson's  reviewer  gives  us,  on  page  202  of  the  Review, 
the  following  quotation  from  Hugh  Miller :  "  The  globe 
itself  was  once  a  molten  mass  of  liquid  fire.  There  was 
not  one  spore,  or  monad,  or  atom  of  life  through  all  its 
dark  domains.  Creation,  from  its  centre  to  its  circumfer- 
ence, was  a  creation  of  dead,^  inorganic  matter."  The 
reviewer  adds :  "  The  history  of  the  globe,  as  wi'itten  in 
fossil  hieroglyphics  on  tables  of  stone,  teaches  us  that  there 
have  been  many  successive  and  independent  creations." 
Thus  Hugh  Miller  is  one  of  those  who  commence  their 


238  Watson's  theological  lnstitutes 


geological  process  with  "  a  molten  mass  of  liquid  fire,"  and 
the  reviewer,  it  is  presumed,  is  one  of  the  same  class,  but 
he  believes  also  in  "  many  successive  and  independent  crea- 
tions."   This  he  finds  Avritten  "  on  tables  of  stone." 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  geological  notions  that  are  scat- 
tered all  over  the  land  by  newspapers,  lecturers,  and  book- 
makers. Some  commence  to  tinker  up  a  world  out  of  a 
mass  of  liquid  fire,  some  o«t  of  a  vast  and  shoreless  ocean, 
and  some  out  of  a  continent  that  strangely  sprang  up  out 
of  a  vast  ocean ;  while  others,  very  fortunately,  and  not 
less  strangely,  obtain  a  huge  mass  of  molten  glass,  struck 
off  from  the  sun,  and  by  great  industry  and  the  help  of  na- 
ture,  of  course,  tinker  up  a  world  out  of  that.  And  when, 
in  their  imagination,  they  have  succeeded  in  making  a  world 
without  God,  they  proceed  to  furnish  it  Avithout  God  !  In 
doing  this,  as  in  constructing  the  earth,  they  have  different 
beginnings.  In  originating  living  beings,  some  commence 
with  a  mar/got^  some  with  an  egg,  some  with  molecules, 
some  with  ajypetencies,  internal  moulds,  or  prolific  matter. 
And  from  these,  by  the  power  of  nature,  they  produce 
all  that  is ! 

The  reader  is  no  doubt  weary  of  these  godless  theories, 
but  not  more  so  than  we  are  ourselves.  We  will  therefore 
dismiss  them  with  a  single  quotation  from  the  "  London  En- 
cylopredia."  Speaking  of  tliis  class  of  geological  theorists, 
the  writer  says :  "  The  theories  or  dreams  which  they  form- 
ed must  therefore  be  viewed  merely  in  the  light  of  j^hilo- 
sophical  romances,  or  ingenious  works  of  fancy,  and  would 
apply  to  any  other  planet  as  well  as  to  ours.  Nineteen  of 
them  may  be  found  in  the  introduction  to  Mr.  Accum's 
'  Chemistry.'  They  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  state  and 
appearances  of  the  earth  as  the  Oceana  or  the  Utopia  bear 
to  actually  existing  governments ;.  and  can  no  more  account 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED, 


239 


for  its  phenomena  than  the  fictions  of  enchantment  can  ex- 
plain the  events  of  history." 

Speakmg  of  various  geological  conjectures,  many  of 
which  are  far  in  advance  of  those  which  vre  have  given 
above,  Mr.  Watson  says :  "  To  all  these  suppositions,  though 
not  unsupported  by  the  authority  of  some  great  critics, 
there  are  considerable  objections ;  and  if  the  difficulty  of 
reconciling  geological  phenomenji  with  the  Mosaic  chro- 
nology were  greater  than  it  appears,  none  of  them  ought 
hastily  to  be  admitted.  That  creation,  in  the  first  verse 
of  Genesis,  signifies  production  out  of  thing,  and  not  out  of 
pre-existent  matter,  though  the  original  word  may  be  used 
in  both  senses,  is  made  a  matter  of  faith  by  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who  tells  us,  '  that  the  things  ichich  qre  seen,  tcere 
not  made  of  things  ichich  do  aj^pear ;  ^  which  is  sufficient 
to  settle  that  point.  By  the  same  important  jiassage  it  is 
also  determined,  that  the  worlds  were  produced  in  their 
form,  as  well  as  substance,  instantly  out  of  nothing ;  or  it 
would  not  be  true,  that  they  were  not  made  of  things  which 
do  appear."  "  The  apostle  states,"  says  Dr,  Adam  Clarke 
on  the  place,  "  that  these  things  were  not  made  out  of  iij^re- 
existent  matter ;  for,  if  they  were,  that  matter,  however 
extended  or  modified,  must  appear  in  that  thing  into  which 
it  is  compounded  and  modified  ;  thei'efore  it  could  not  be 
said,  that  the  things  which  are  seen,  are  not  made  of  things 
that  appear ;  and  he  shows  us  also,  by  these  words,  that 
the  jiresent  mimdane  fiibric  was  not  formed  or  reformed 
from  one  anterior,  as  some  suppose."  This  text,  as  here 
understood,  and  we  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  imderstood 
otherwise,  settles  these  two  grand  points,  namely,  that  the 
worlds  had  their  origin  in  the  creative  act  of  the  Almighty, 
and  that,  of  course,  instantaneously .  Second,  that  they 
had  their /or^i  by  the  fiat  of  the  same  Almighty  Being,  and 


2i0  watson's  theological  institutes 


that  of  course  instantaneously.  These  two  truths  of  Teve- 
lation  sweep  away  at  a  stroke  all  the  geological  tinkerings 
of  ^jhilosophers,  both  ancient  and  modern  !  And  all  this  is 
confirmed  by  the  plain  and  unmistakable  words  of  Moses  in 
his  narrative  of  the  creation  and  formation  of  the  worlds, 
and  of  the  origin  of  all  things.  In  proof  of  this  we  simply 
call  attention  to  the  following  quotations,  which  we  think 
are  decisive  of  the  points. at  issue:  "In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  "  And  God  said,  Let 
there  be  light :  and  there  was  light."  "  And  God  said, 
Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be  gathered  together  unto 
one  place,  and  let  the  dry  land  appear:  and  it  was  so." 
"  And  God  s.iid,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb 
yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit  tree  yielding  fruit  after  his 
kind,  Avhose  seed  is  in  itself,  upon  the  earth :  and  it  was  so." 
"And  God  said.  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly 
the  moving  creature  that  hath  life,  and  fowl  that  may  fly 
above  the  earth  in  the  open  firmament  of  heaven.  And  God 
created  great  whales,  and  evert  living  ckeatuee  that 
MOVETH,  which  the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly  after 
their  kind,  and  every  winged  fowl  after  his  kind :  and  God 
saw  that  it  was  good.  And  God  blessed  them,  saying, 
Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  fill  the  waters  in  the  seas,  and 
let  fowl  multiply  in  the  earth."  "  And  God  made  the  beast 
of  the  earth  after  his  kind,  and  cattle  after  their  kind,  and 
everything  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  after  his  kind." 
"  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our 
likeness."  "  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the 
image  of  God  created  he  him ;  male  and  female  created  he 
them.  And  God  blessed  them,  and  God  said  unto  them. 
Be  fruitful,  and  multiply."  Now,  we  simply  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader  to  the  two  facts  asserted  in  the  above 
quotations.    First,  that  the  existence  of  the  worlds,  and  of 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED.  241 

men^  animals,  and  vegetables,  is  the  instant  result  of  God's 
act,  or  word.  Second,  that  when  men,  animals,  and  vege- 
tables produce  their  own  species,  the  original  power  to  do 
so  is  from  that  same  God  that  gave  tliem  their  existence. 
Had  he  not  given  the  power  and  uttered  the  command,  no 
being  would  have  multiplied.  When  by  nature  philoso- 
phers mean  this,  we  have  no  dispute,  for  according  to  this 
showing  nature  itself  is  God's  creature  !  On  these  points 
Moses  is  still  more  specific,  if  that  can  be,  in  the  second 
chapter  of  Genesis,  where  he  recapitulates  what  "  God 
created  and  made,''''  or  created  to  make,  as  it  is  in  the  mar- 
gin. In  evidence  of  this  we  will  give  yet  another  quota- 
tion :  "  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the 
earth  when  they  were  created,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord 
God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens,  and  every  plant  of 
the  field  before  it  was  in  the  earth,  afld  every  herb  of  the 
field  before  it  grew :  for  the  Lord  God  had  not  caused  it  to 
rain  upon  the  earth."  Before  the  ordinary  process  of  vege- 
tation had  commenced,  God  produced  q\qxj plant  and  every 
herb  perfect,  and  instantaneous,  with  the  seed  hi  itself. 
And,  in  short,  everything,  every  creature,  was  perfect,  was 
complete  in  that  very  day  on  which  it  was  created  or  made. 
Here  all  is  supernatural ;  the  being,  and  the  original  char- 
acter and  form  of  every  creature  are  attributed  to  the  im- 
mediaie  act  or  fiat  of  the  Lord  God !  When  the  geological 
dreams,  specimens  of  which  we  have  given  above,  are  con- 
trasted with  these  sublime  teachings  of  Moses,  on  the  same 
subject,  they  sink  into  drivelling  nonsense,  and  appear  su- 
premely contemptible.  That  heathen  philosophers  should 
teach  as  they  have  done,  is  strange ;  but  that  Christian  phi- 
losophers, with  the  Bible  in  their  hand,  should  do  so,  is  at 
once  unaccountable  and  intolerable  !  And  it  has  long  ap- 
peared to  us  strange,  passing  strange,  that  a  certain  class 
11 


24:2  avatson's  theological  institutes 

of  geologists,  when  attempting  to  account  for  the  various 
geological  phenomena,  utterly  ignore,  not  only  the  creative 
and  formative  acts  of  the  Almighty,  as  recorded  by  Moses, 
but  also  the  original  gathering  together  of  the  waters  into 
one  place,  and  the  general  deluge  ;  which,  if  they  do  not 
account  for  all  the  phenomena,  will  certainly  account  for 
much  of  them. 

"  An  able  work,"  says  Mr.  Watson,  "  has  been  recently 
pubhshed  on  the  subject  by  Mr.  Granville  Penn,  who  has  at 
once  reproved  the  bold  philosophy  which  excludes  the 
operation  of  God,  and  employs  itself  only  among  second 
causes ;  and  has  unfolded  the  Mosaic  account  of  two  great 
revolutions  of  the  earth,  one  of  which  took  place  when 
'  the  waters  were  gathered  into  one  place,'  and  the  other 
at  the  deluge,  '  when  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were 
broken  up,'  and  ha^pplied  them  to  account  for  those  phe- 
nomena which  have  been  made  to  require  a  theory  not  to 
be  reconciled  with  the  sacred  historian.  A  scientific  journal 
of  great  reputation,  edited  at  the  Royal  Institution,  has 
made  an  honorable  disclaimer  of  those  theories  which 
contradicted  the  Scriptures,  and  speaks  in  commendation 
of  Mr.  Penn."  "We  subjoin  the  quotation  which  Mr.  Wat- 
son gives  from  the  "scientific  journal"  referred  to. 

"  We  are  not  inclined,  even  if  we  had  time,  to  enter 
into  the  comparative  merits  of  the  fire  and  water  fancies, 
miscalled  theories  ;  but  we  have  certain  old-fashioned  pre- 
judices, which,  in  these  enlightened  days  of  scepticisjn  and 
infidelity,  will  no  doubt  be  set  down  as  mightily  ridiculous, 
but  which,  nevertheless,  induce  us  to  pause  before  we 
acquiesce  either  in  the  one  or  the  other.  There  is  another 
mode  of  accounting  for  the  present  state  of  the  earth's 
structure,  on  prmciples  at  least  as  rational,  in  a  philosoph- 
ical light,  as  either  the  Plutonian  or  Neptunian ;  and  in- 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


2i3 


asmuch  as  it  is  more  consistent  wilh,  and  founded  on,  sacred 
histoiy,  incomparably  superior.  (See  Mr.  Granville  Peun's 
'  Comparative  Estimate  of  the  Mineral  and  Mosaical  Geolo- 
gies.')" 

It  may  well  be  said  that  the  "  fire  and  water  fancies " 
are  "  miscalled  theories ; "  and  it  is  with  equal  propriety 
that  they  are  referred  to  "  scepticism  and  infidehty." 


214 


WATSON  S  THEOLOGICAL  rNSTTTUTES 


CHAPTEE  VIII. 

To  chapter  xx,  of  his  "  Theological  Institutes,"  entitled, 
"  Miscellaneous  Objections  Answered,"  Mr.  Watson  appends 
an  extract  from  Mr.  Penn's  work  on  geology  ;  it  commences 
on  p.  259  of  vol.  i.  As  the  "  Institutes  "  are  not  much  read, 
save  by  theological  students,  and  Mr.  Penn's  work  on  geol- 
ogy is  little  known,  we  have  concluded  to  introduce  the 
entire  extract  just  here.  We  do  so  the  more  readily  be- 
cause it  may  be  viewed  as  embodying  Mr.  Watson's  views, 
as  far  as  it  goes,  and  because,  while  others  seem  determined 
to  exclude  the  Scrijitures  from  their  geological  investiga- 
tions, we  are  fully  convinced  that  it  is  only  in  the  light  of 
Scripture  teaching  that  this  subject  can  be  safely  and  satis- 
factorily investigated.  With  the  torch  of  revelation  in  his 
hand,  and  receiving  that  torch  as  from  the  hand  of  God, 
the  man  of  science  will  investigate  geological  phenomena 
both  with  pleasure  and  profit,  to  himself  and  to  others. 

Mr.  Watson  introduces  the  extract  thus :  "  Mr.  Penn 
first  controverts  the  notion  of  those  geologists  who  think 
that  the  earth  was  originally  a  fluid  mass ;  and  as  they  plead 
the  authority  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  who  is  said  to  have  con- 
cluded from  its  figure  (an  obtuse  spheroid),  that  it  was 
originally  a  yielding  mass,  Mr.  Penn  shows  that  this  was 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED,  245 

only  put  liypothetically  by  him;  and  that  he  has  laid  it 
down  expressly  as  his  belief,  not  that  there  was  first  a 
chaotic  ocean,  and  then  a  gradual  process  of  first  formations, 
but  that  '  God  at  the  beginning  formed  all  material  things 
of  such  figures  and  projierties^as  most  conduced  to  the  end 
for  which  he  formed  them  ; '  and  that  he  judged  it  to  be  un- 
I)liilosophical  to  ascribe  them  to  any  mediate  or  secondary 
cause,  such  as  laws  of  nature  operating  in  chaos.  Mr.  Peun 
then  proceeds  to  show,  that,  though  what  geologists  call 
first  formations  may  have  the  appearance  of  having  been 
produced  by  a  jjrocess,  say  of  crystallization,  or  any  other, 
that  is  no  proof  that  they  were  not  formed  by  the  imme- 
diate act  of  God,  as  we  are  taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  and 
he  confirms  this  by  examples  from  the  Jirst  formations  in 
the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdom,  and  contends  that  the 
first  formations  of  the  mineral  kingdom  must  come  imder 
the  same  rule." 

The  fact  is,  minerals,  vegetables,  and  animals  are,  alike, 
the  Avork  of  God,  whether  he  produces  them  instantly  by 
his  creative  act,  or  gradually  according  to  what  are  called 
the  laws  of  nature.  As  for  law,  Avhether  human  or  divine, 
itjyroduces  nothing,  it  does  nothing  !  It  is  merely  the  rule 
by  which  the  producing  or  doing  agent  is  pleased  to  act. 
And  when  God  i^roduces  anything  according  to  the  laws 
of  nature,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  makes  it 
essentially  difierent  from  what  he  made  that  same  thing 
when  he  produced  it  by  his  creative  act ;  on  the  contrary, 
we  have  reason  to  suppose  that  what  is  i^roduced  by  the 
creative  act  is  the  pattern,  and  that  what  is  produced  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  nature  is  made  like  that  pattern. 
For  instance,  when  God  produced  almonds  ujwn  Aaron's 
rod  in  one  night,  and  that  while  it  lay  in  the  tabernacle, 
without  either  sun  or  rain,  they  were  similar,  doubtless,  to 


246  Watson's  theological  institutes 

those  which  he  produced  in  the  course  of  the  season  ac- 
cording to  what  are  called  the  laws  of  nature :  and  if  a 
naturalist,  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  they  were  produced  as 
above,  had  examined  them,  he  would,  doubtless,  ha-\  e  de- 
cided that  they  yveve  produced  in  the  course  of  the  season 
according  to  the  known  laws  of  nature.  It  is  certain,  how- 
ever, that  he  would  have  been  mistaken.  Just  so  it  is 
with  those  things  which  God  now  produces  according  to 
what  are  called  the  laws  of  nature ;  they  are  doubtless  the 
same  as  those  which  he  originally  j^roduced  by  his  creative 
act,  so  much  so  that  the  naturalist  would  not  discover  any 
difference.  And  it  is  equally  true  that  it  is  God  that  pro- 
duces in  the  one  case  as  really  as  in  the  dlher.  The  almond 
tree  that  grows  in  the  most  fertile  garden  in  Judea  could 
no  more  produce  almonds  without  God  than  could  the  rods 
that  were  deposited  in  the  tabernacle.  And  what  is  true 
of  the  almond,  is  equally  true  of  anything,  and  everythmg, 
that  God  produced  by  his  creative  act  originally ;  they 
were  similar  to  the  same  genera  and  species  as  now  pro- 
duced according  to  the  laws  of  nature.  So  that  arguments 
drawn  from  the  present  apjjcarance  of  minei-als,  vegetables, 
and  animals,  do  not  prove  that  they  were  produced  oriffi- 
nallyhy  a  sloio  process.  All  such  arguments  are  built  upon 
a  mere  hypothesis  which  has  no  foundation  in  truth,  and 
are,  consequently,  without  foundation.  And  as  all  the 
geological  systems  to  which  we  object  are  built  upon  this 
hypothesis,  it  follows  that  they  are  all  without  foundation. 
The  Scriptures  teach  us  that  God  created  and  formed  the 
originals  by  his  fiat,  instantly.,  not  by  a  long,  slow  process, 
and  that  what  he  afterward  produced,  and  now  produces, 
by  what  arc  called  the  laws  of  nature,  are  similar  to  the 
originals,  and  that  the  instantly  created  and  slowly  formed 
productions  are  alike  the  work  of  God. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


247 


The  following  is  the  extract  which  Mr,  Watson  fur- 
nishes from  Mr.  Penn's  geological  work  referred  to  above  : 

"  If  a  bone  of  the  first  created  man  now  remained,  and 
were  mingled  with  other  bones  pertaining  to  a  generated 
race,  and  if  it  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  inspection  and 
examination  of  an  anatomist,  what  opinion  and  judgment 
would  its  sensible  phenomena  suggest  respecting  the  mode 
of  its  first  formation,  and  what  would  be  his  conclusion  ? 
If  lie  were  unnpprizcd  of  its  true  origin,  his  mind  would  see 
notldnr/  in  its  sensible  phenomena  but  the  laM's  of  ossifica- 
tion ;  just  as  the  mineral  geologist  '■sees  nothing  in  the  de- 
tails of  the  formation  of  minerals,  but  p>recipitations,  crys- 
talliuttions,  and  dissolutions.''  (D'Aubuisson,  i,  pj).  326-7.) 
He  would,  therefore,  naturally  pronounce  of  this  bone,  as 
of  all  other  bones,  that  its  fibi'es  were  originally  soft,'' 
until,  in  the  shelter  of  the  maternal  womb,  it  acquired  '  the 
hardness  of  a  cartilage  and  then  of  a  hone  ;  that  this  effect 
'  teas  not  produced  at  once,  or  iti  a  very  short  time^  but  '  by 
degrees  ; '  that,  after  birth,  it  increased  in  hardness  '  by  the 
continual  addition  of  ossifying  matter,  until  it  ceased  to 
groto  at  all? 

"  Physically  true  as  this  reasoning  would  apjiear,  it 
would  nevertheless  be  morally  and  really  false.  Why- 
would  it  be  false  ?  Because  it  concluded,  from  mere  sen- 
sible phenomena,  to  the  certainty  of  a  fact  which  would 
not  be  estabhshed  by  the  evidence  of  sensible  phenomena 
alone  ;  namely,  the  mode  of  the  first  formation  of  the  sub- 
stance of  created  bone. 

"Let  us  proceed  from  animal  to  vegetable  matter ;  and 
let  us  consider  the  first  created  tree,  under  which  the  creat- 
ed man  first  reposed,  and  from  Avhich  he  gathered  his  first 
fruit.  That  tree  must  have  had  a  stem  or  trunk  through 
which  the  juices  were  conveyed  from  the  root  to  the  fruit, 


248  avatson's  theological  institutes 


and  by  which  it  Avas  able  to  sustain  the  branches  upon 
which  the  fruit  grew. 

"  If  a  portion  of  this  created  tree  now  remained,  and  if 
a  section  of  its  wood  were  to  be  mingled  with  other  sec- 
tions of  propagated  trees,  and  submitted  to  the  inspection 
and  examination  of  a  naturalist,  what  opinion  and  judgment 
would  its  se7isible  phenomena  suggest  to  him  respecting  the 
mode  of  its  first  formation  /  and  what  would  be  his  con- 
clusion ?  If  he  were  unapprized  of  its  true  origin,  his  mind 
would  see  nothing  in  its  sensible  phenomena  but  laws  of 
lignification  ;  just  as  the  mineral  geologist  '  sees  nothing  in 
the  details  of  the  formations  of  primitive  rock,  \)\3X  precipi- 
tations, crystallizations,  and  dissolutions.^  He  would,  there- 
fore naturally  pronounce  of  it  as  of  all  other  sections  of 
wood,  that  its  '■fibres,^  when  they  first  issued  from  the 
seed,  '  were  soft  and  herbaceous  ; '  that  they  '  did  not 
suddenly  pass  to  the  hardness  of  perfect  wood,''  but  '  after 
many  years  ;  '  that  the  hardness  of  their  folds,  '  which  in- 
dicate the  growth  of  each  year,^  was  therefore  effected  only 
'  by  degrees  y  '  and  that,  '  since  nature  does  nothing  but  by 
a  progressive  course,  it  is  not  surprising  that  its  substance 
acquired  its  hardness  only  by  little  and  little? 

"  Physically  true  as  the  naturalist  would  here  apj^ear  to 
reason,  yet  his  reasoning,  like  that  of  the  anatomist,  Avould 
be  morally  and  really  false.  And  Avhy  would  it  be  false  ? 
For  the  same  reason,  because  he  concluded  from  mere  sen- 
sible phenomena  to  the  certainty  of  a  fact  which  could  not 
be  established  by  the  evidence  of  sensible  jDhenomena  alone  ; 
namely,  the  mode  of  the  first  formation  of  the  substance  of 
created  wood. 

"  There  only  now  remains  to  be  considered  the  third  or 
mineral  kingdom  of  this  terrestrial  system  ;  and  it  appears 
probable  to  reason  and  philosophy,  hy  pi-ima  facie  evidence, 


AIJD  THE  BIELE  DEFENDED. 


249 


that  the  princijDle  determining  the  mode  of  first  formations, 
in  tic 0  parts  of  this  threefold  division  of  matter,  must  have 
equal  authority  in  this  third  part.  And,  indeed,  after  the 
closest  investigation  of  the  subject,  we  can  discover  no 
ground  whatever  for  supposing  that  this  third  part  is  ex- 
empted from  the  authority  of  that  common  pyrinciple  ;  or 
that  physics  are  a  whit  more  competent  to  dogmatize  con- 
cerning the  mode  of  first  formations,  from  the  evidence  of 
phenomena  alone,  in  the  mineral  kingdom,  than  they  have 
been  found  to  be  in  the  animal  or  vegetable  ;  or  to  affirm, 
from  the  indications  of  the  former,  that  the  mode  of  its 
first  formations  was  more  gradual  and  tardy  than  those  of 
the  other  two. 

"Let  us  try  this  point,  by  proceeding  with  our  com- 
jiarison  ;  and  let  us  consider  the  first  created  rock^  as  we 
have  considered  the  first  created  hone  and  wood ;  and  let 
us  ask,  what  is  rock^  in  its  nature  and  composition  ? 

"To  this  question  mineralogy  replies  :  'By  the  word 
rock  we  mean  every  mineral  mass  of  such  bulk  as  to  be 
regarded  an  essential  part  of  the  structure  of  the  globe.' 
(D'Aubuisson,  i,  p.  272.)  'We  imderstand  by  the  word 
mineral,  a  natural  body,  inorganic,  solid,  homogeneous,  that 
is,  composed  of  integrant  molecules  of  the  same  substance.' 
(D'Aubuisson,  i,  p.  2Y1.)  'We  may,  perhaps,  pronounce 
that  a  mass  is  essential,  when  its  displacement  would  occa- 
sion the  downfall  of  other  masses  which  are  placed  upon  it.' 
(D'Aubuisson,  i,  p.  272.)  '  Such  are  those  lofty  and  an- 
cient mountains,  the  first  and  most  solid  bones,  as  it  were 
of  this  globe — les  premiers,  les  2)liis  solides  ossemens — 
which  have  merited  the  name  of  primitive,  because,  scorn- 
ing all  support  and  all  foreign  mixture,  they  repose  always 
upon  bases  similar  to  themselves,  and  comprise  within  their 
substance  no  matter  but  of  the  same  nature.'  (Saussure, 
ll» 


250  watson's  theological  rsrsTrruTEs 


'  Voyages  des  Alps,'  Disc.  Prel.  pp.  6,  V.)  '  These  are  the 
primordial  mountains  which  traverse  our  continents  in  va- 
rious directions,  rising  above  the  clouds,  separating  the 
basins  of  rivers  one  from  another ;  serving,  by  means  of 
their  eternal  snows,  as  reservoirs  for  feeding  the  springs, 
and  forming  in  some  measure  the  slceleton^  or,  as  it  were, 
the  rough  franieviorJc  of  the  earth.'  (Cuviei-,  sec.  7,  p.  39.) 
'  These  primitive  masses  are  stamped  with  the  charact.er  of 
a  formation  altogether  crystalline,  as  if  they  were  really  the 
product  of  a  tranquil  precipitation.'   (D'Aubuisson,  ii,  p.  5.) 

"  Had  the  mineral  geology  contented  itself  with  this 
simple  niineralogical  statement,  we  should  have  thus  ar- 
gued concerning  the  crystalline  phenomena  of  the  first  min- 
eral formations,  conformably  to  the  principles  which  we 
have  recognized.  As  the  bone  of  the  first  man,  and.  the 
wood  of  the  first  tree,  whose  solidity  was  essential  for  '  giv- 
ing shape,  firmness,  and  support '  to  their  respective  sys- 
tems, were  not,  and  could  not  have  been,  formed  by  the 
gradual  processes  of  ossification  and  lignification^  of  which 
they  nevertheless  must  have  exhibited  the  sensible  phe- 
nomena, or  apparent  indications ;  so,  reason  directs  us  to 
conclude,  that  primitive  rocJc,  whose  solidity  was  equally 
essential  for  giving  shape,  firmness,  and  support  to  the  min- 
eral system  of  the  globe,  was  not,  and  could  not  have  been, 
formed  by  the  gradual  process  oi pred2ntation  and  crystalli- 
zation, notwithstanding  any  sensible  phenomena,  apparently 
indicative  of  those  processes  which  it  may  exhibit ;  but  that 
ill  the  mineral  kingdom,  as  in  the  animal  and  vegetable 
kingdoms,  the  creating  agent  anticipated,  in  his  formations 
by  an  immediate  act,  effects^  whose  sensible  phenomena 
could  not  determine  the  mode  of  their  formation  ;  be- 
cause the  real  mode  was  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  ap- 
parent indications  of  the  phenomena. 


AJJD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


251 


"  But  the  mineral  geology  has  not  contented  itself  with 
that  simjile  miner alogical  statement,  nor  drawn  the  conclu- 
sion which  we  have  drawn  in  conformity  with  the  principles 
and  in  observance  of  the  rules  of  Newton's  philosophy.  It 
affirms  '  that  the  characters  by  which  geology  is  written  in 
the  book  of  nature,  in  which  it  is  to  be  studied,  are  miner- 
als '  (D'Aubuisson,  Disc.  Prel.,  p.  29) ;  and  it '  sees  nothing  ' 
in  the  book  of  nature  but  '■2>recipita(io7is,  crystallizations, 
and  dissolutions  and  therefore,  because  it  sees  nothiixj 
else,  it  concludes,  without  liesitation,  from  ci-ystalline  phe- 
nomena to  actual  crystallization.  Thus,  by  attempting  the 
impossibility  of  deducing  a  universal  lyrinciple,  viz.,  tlia 
mode  of  first  formation  from  the  analysis  of  a  single  in- 
dividual., viz.,  mineral  matter,  separate  from  coordinate 
a7iimal  and  vegetable  matter,  and  concluding  from  that  de- 
fective analysis  to  the  genercd  law  of  lirst  fowuatious,  it  set 
out  with  inadequate  light,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  it  ended 
in  absolute  darkness,  for  such  is  its  elemental  chaos,  and  its 
chemical  preci2)itation  of  this  globe :  a  doctrine  so  nearly 
resembling  the  exploded  atomic  philosophy  of  the  Epicu- 
rean school,  that  it  requires  a  very  close  and  laborious  in- 
spection to  discover  a  single  feature  by  which  they  may  be 
distinguished  from  each  other." 

Here  Mr.  Watson  observes  :  "  This  argument  is  largely 
supported  and  illustrated  in  the  work ;  and  thus  by  refer- 
ring first  formations  of  every  kind  to  an  immediate  act  of 
God,  those  immense  periods  of  time  wliich  geology  de- 
mands for  its  chemical  process  are  rendered  unnecessary. 
From  first  formations  Mr.  Penn  proceeds  to  opjjose  the 
notion  that  the  earth  has  undergone  many  general  revolu- 
tions, and  thinks  that  all  geological  phenomena  may  be 
better  explained  by  the  Mosaic  record,  which  confines 
those  general  revolutions  to  two.    Mr.  Pciui's  course  of 


252  WATSON 's  THEOLOGICAL  ESrSTITUT] 


observation  will  be  seen  by  the  following  recapitulation  of 
the  second  and  third  parts  of  liis  work."  ("Institutes," 
vol.  i,  p.  261.) 

Mr.  Penn  goes  on  to  show,  "  That  tliis  globe,  so  con- 
structed at  its  origin,  has  undergone  two  and  07ily  two 
general  changes  or  revolutions  of  its  substance,  each  of 
which  was  caused  by  the  immediate  will,  intelligence,  and 
power  of  God,  exercised  upon  the  work  which  he  had 
formed,  and  directing  the .  laws  or  agencies  which  he  had 
ordained  within  it. 

"That,  by  the  first  change  or  revolution  [that  of 
gathering  the  waters  into  one  place  and  making  the  dry 
land  appear],  one  portion  or  division  of  the  surface  of  the 
globe  was  suddenly  and  violently  fractured  and  depressed, 
m  order  to  form,  in  the  first  instance,  a  receptacle  or  bed 
for  the  water*  [hitherto]  universally  diffused  over  the  sur- 
face, and  to  expose  the  other  portion,  that  it  might  become 
a  dwelling  for  animal  life  ;  but  yet  with  an  ulterior  design 
that  this  first  bed  of  the  waters  should  eventually  become 
the;  chief  theatre  of  animal  existence,  by  the  portion  first 
exposed  experiencing  a  similar  fracture  and  depression,  and 
thus  becoming  in  its  turn  the  receptacle  of  the  same  waters, 
which  should  then  be  transfused  into  it,  leaving  their  for- 
mer receptacle  void  and  dry. 

"That  this  first  revolution  took  place  before  the  exist- 
ence, that  is,  before  the  creation  of  any  organized  beings. 

"  That  the  sea,  collected  into  this  vast  fractured  cavity 
of  the  globe  surfiice,  continued  to  occupy  it  during  1656 
years  [from  the  creation  to  the  deluge],  during  which  long 
period  of  time  its  waters  acted  in  various  modes,  chemical 
and  mechanical,  upon  the  several  soils  and  fragments  which 
formed  its  bed,  and  marine  organic  matter,  animal  and 
vegetable,  was  generated  and  accumulated  in  vast  abun- 
dance. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED.  253 

• 

"That,  after  the  expiration  of  these  1656  years,  it 
pleased  God,  in  a  second  revolution,  to  execute  his  ulterior 
design,  by  repeating  the  amazing  operation  by  which  he 
had  exposed  the  first  earth,  and  by  the  disruption  and  de- 
pression of  the  first  earth  below  the  level  of  the  bed  of  the 
first  sea,  to  produce  a  new  bed,  into  which  the  waters 
descended  from  their  former  bed,  leaving  it  to  become  the 
theatre  of  the  future  generation  of  mankind. 

"  That  THIS  PRESENT  EARTH  WAS  THAT  FORMER  BED. 

"That  it  must,  therefore,  necessarily  exhibit  manifest 
and  universal  evidence  of  the  vicissitudes  which  it  has  un- 
dergone, viz.,  of  the  vast  apparent  ruin  occasioned  by  its 
first  violent  disruption  and  depression ;  of  the  presence 
and  operation  of  the  marine  fluid  during  the  long  interval 
which  succeeded,  and  of  the  action  and  effects  of  that  fluid 
in  its  ultimate  retreat. 

"  Within  the  limits  of  this  general  scheme  all  specula- 
tion must  be  confined  which  would  aspire  to  the  quality  of 
sound  geology  ;  yet  vast  and  sublime  is  the  field  which  it 
lays  open  to  exercise  the  intelligence  and  experience  of 
sober  and  philosophical  mineralogy  and  chemistry.  Upon 
this  legitimate  ground,  those  many  valuable  writers  who 
have  unwarily  lent  their  science  to  uphold  and  propagate 
the  vicious  doctrine  of  a  chaotic  geogony,  may  geologize 
with  full  security,  and  may  there  concur  to  promote  that 
true  advancement  of  natural  philosophy  which  Newton 
holds  to  be  inseparable  from  a  proportionate  advancement 
of  the  moral.  They  must  thus  at  length  succeed  in  per- 
fecting a  true  philosophical  geology,  which  never  can  exist 
unless  the  principle  of  Newton  form  the  foundation,  and 
the  relation  of  Moses  the  working  plan^ 

Our  own  views  of  the  geological  theory  here  given,  are 
somewhat  correctly  expressed  in  the  quotation  furnished  by 


254  Watson's  theological  institutes 

Mr.  "Watson  from  the  "  scientific  journal  of  great  reputa- 
tion," which  quotation  we  have  given  above.  The  reader 
will  observe  that  Mr.  Penn  attributes  geological  phenomena 
to  three  distinct  causes :  first,  the  creative  act  of  -the  Al- 
mighty ;  second,  the  gathering  together  of  the  waters  in 
connection  with  the  work  of  the  six  days ;  third,  the  gen- 
eral deluge.  This  view  is  unquestionably  Scriptural,  and, 
consequently,  perfectly  safe ;  and  that  these  three  events, 
or  causes,  specified  by  God  himself,  are  adequate  to  the 
production  of  the  geological  phenomena  under  considera- 
tion will,  we  think,  be  admitted  by  all :  nor  can  this  view 
be  considered  unreasonable,  especially  if  we  recognize  God 
as  having  in  view  the  ultimate  end,  or  ends,  specified  by 
Mr.  Penn ;  and  this  we  certainly  must  recognize,  for  God 
not  only  created  and  made  all,  but  he  did  so  with  reference 
to  specific  and  xoise  ends.  "  God,"  says  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
"  at  the  beginning  formed  all  material  things  of  such  figures 
and  properties  as  most  conduced  to  the  end  for  which  he 
formed  them."  Whether  the  present  earth  was,  in  part  or 
in  whole,  the  bed  of  the  waters  during  the  antediluvian  pe- 
riod, we  do  not  pretend  to  say ;  certainly  the  conjecture  is 
not  an  unreasonable  one,  and,  to  say  the  least,  it  is  perfectly 
harmless.  As  to  those  who  recognize  all  geological  phe- 
nomena as  resulting  from  what  are  called  natural  laws, 
and  see  nothing,  as  Mr.  Penn  observes,  but  precipitations, 
crystallizations,  dissolutions,  <fec.,  we  must  be  permitted  to 
say  to  them  as  Jesus  Christ  said  to  similar  theorists :  "  Ye 
do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God." 
(Matt,  xxii,  29.)  Indeed,  by  such  theorists  God  is  not  rec- 
ognized at  all ;  their  theories  are  amongst  the  most  god- 
less of  wliich  we  know  anything.  Those  who  recognize  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  yet  adopt  such  theories, 
try  to  bend  the  Scrij^tures  to  them  \  hence  they  would  have 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFE>-DED. 


255 


US  understand  the  days  of  Moses  to  be  periods  of  inconceiv- 
able length  :  an  interpretation  Avhich  the  sacred  narrative 
■\\Till  never  admit  of,  and  which  is  as  dangerous  as  it  is  forced ; 
dangerous,  because  if  such  a  mode  of  interpretation  be  al- 
lowed, the  Scriptures  may  be  made  to  mean  anything  or 
notliing,  and  a  license  will  thus  be.given  to  errorists  to  bend 
the  sacred  text  as  their  erroneous  theories  may  seem  to  re- 
quire ;  dangerous  and  forced,  because  it  not  only  affects  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath,  but  is  utterly  inadmissible,  as  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  will  show :  "  Remember  the  Sabbath  day 
to  keej)  it  holy.  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy 
work  :  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  sou, 
nor  thy  daughter,  nor  thy  man  servant  nor  thy  maid  ser- 
vant, nor  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy 
gates  :  for  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the 
sea  and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day . 
wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day  and  hal- 
lowed it."  (Exodus  XX,  8-11.)  Now,  it  is  quite  obvious 
that  the  "  six  days "  during  which  "  the  Lord  made 
heaven  and  earth,"  and  "  the  seventh  day "  upon  which 
he  is  said  to  have  rested,  are  of  equal  length  with  the 
"six  days"  during  which  he  commands  man  to  work, 
and  "  the  seventh  day,"  or  "  Sabbath  of  the  Lord,"  during 
which  he  commands  him  to  rest,  and  "  not  do  any  work." 
Hence,  if  the  former  are  periods  of  inconceivable  duration, 
so  are  the  latter,  and,  if  so,  God  commands  man  to  work 
during  six  periods  of  inconceivable  duration,  and  to  rest 
during  one  period  equally  long ;  and  this  command  is  en- 
forced by  the  sanction  of  the  moral  law.  That  is,  God 
commands  man,  on  pain  of  his  displeasure,  to  work,  say, 
six  millions  of  years  without  resting,  and  then  rest  one  mil- 
lion of  years,  and  "  not  do  any  work  "  duruig  all  that  pe-  ^ 


256  WATSOn's  theological  INSTmiTES 


riod,  and  his  servants  and  children,  yea  and  his  cattle  too, 
are  to  rest  with  him  all  that  time  ;  and  all  this  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact,  that  he  has  limited  man's  life  to  threescore 
years  and  ten!  Now,  if  our  geological  theorists  shrink 
from  this  conclusion,  as  of  course  they  will,  then  they  must 
simply  give  up  their  whole  theoiy,  at  least  so  far  as  we  have 
objected  to  it,  or  give  up  the  Bible  ;  for  they  cannot  pos- 
sibly hold  both,  seeing  their  teachings  and  those  of  the 
Bible  are  utterly  irreconcilable.  We  earnestly  advise  them 
to  hold  to  the  Bible  and  give  up  the  geological  specula- 
tions; we  believe  the  world  can  get  along  very  well  with- 
out the  latter,  but  we  know  it  cannot  get  along  without 
the  former. 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  geological  as  in  other  theories 
which  have  passed  under  review,  the  grand  error,  which  is 
the  fruitful  source  of  numerous  other  errors,  consists  in  ig- 
noring or  denying  the  supernatural,  and  attributing  every- 
thing to  what  are  called  natural  laws  ;  but  the  Scriptures 
recognize  both,  and  clearly  distinguish  the  one  from  the 
other.  "  In  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the 
sea  and  all  that  in  them  is."  (Genesis  ii,  1.)  "  By  the  word 
of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made ;  and  all  the  host  of 
them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth."  (Psal.  xxxiii,  6.)  It 
is  clear  that  the  work  here  specified  is  the  effect  of  a  cause 
purely  supernatural.  But  "  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and 
all  the  host  of  them,"  being  pi-oducod  as  here  specified, 
God  established  what  are  called  natural  laws  for  man's 
guidance,  so  that  he  might  confidently  expect  given  results 
from  given  causes,  without  which  he  would  not  know  how 
or  when  to  act,  or  what  to  expect,  as'  the  result  of  his  ac- 
tion. The  geological  phenomena  which  we  now  witness  are 
partly  supernatural,  and  partly  natural  in  their  cause.  Some 
^were  produced  by  the  original  fiat  of  the  Almighty,  and 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


257 


by  supernatural  iuterposition  since  then ;  and  some  have 
been  produced  according  to  what  are  called  natural  laws  ; 
but  as  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  i:)roductions  are 
similar,  it  is  sometimes  impossible  to  distinguish  them; 
hence  geologists  greatly  err  when  they  attribute  to  the 
slow  process  of  natural  laws  everything  that  is  similar  to 
what  are  known  to  have  been  produced  in  that  way.  But 
while  we  recognize  geological  phenomena  as  being  both 
natural  and  supernatural  in  their  cause,  we  recognize  the 
salvation  of  fallen  man  as  being  purely  supernatural  in  its 
cause  from  first  to  last.  "  For  if  there  had  been  a  law  given 
which  could  have  given  life  [to  fallen  man],  verily  righteous- 
ness should  have  been  by  the  law."  But  there  was  no 
such  law  revealed  before  the  fall ;  the  supernatural  remedy 
was  introduced  after  the  fall,  and  it  is  declared  to  be  the 
only  remedy  the  case  would  admit  of ;  and  every  contrary 
supposition,  or  assumption,  is  declared  to  be  antagonistic 
to  this  scheme  :  hence  the  apostle  says,  "  for  if  righteous- 
ness come  by  the  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vaua,"  that  is, 
he  died  to  no  purpose  if  life  could  have  been  restored  to 
fallen  man  by  previously  existing  laws.  By  attending  to 
this  distinction  between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural, 
we  will  avoid  many  of  the  mistakes  into  which  theologians 
and  philosophers  have  fallen.  And  we  may  safely  affirm 
that,  where  this  distinction  is  properly  recognized,  infidelity 
and  the  various  rationalistic  and  kindred  schemes  can  have 
no  existence. 


258 


watsok's  theological  institdtes 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Having  shown  that  the  supernatural  phenomena  re- 
corded in  the  Bible  are  God's  seals  affixed  to  its  teachings, 
and  that  they  prove  those  teachings  to  be  what  they  pro- 
fess to  be,  Ave  here  subjoin  "Leslie's  Method  with  Deists," 
which,  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  those  phenomena 
are  facts,  not  fiction,  is,  we  believe,  conclusive  beyond  the 
possibility  of  successful  contradiction.  So  that  when  this 
is  taken  in  connection  with  what  we  have  said  in  the 
preceding  pages,  we  hope  it  wiU  be  seen  that  the  Bible  is 
complete  in  itself,  both  in  teaching  and  <^idence. 

Zeslie's  Method  with  Deists:  wherein  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion  is  demonstrated,  in  a  letter  to  a 
friend. 

CHEISTIANITY  DEMONSTKATED. 

Deae  Sir  : — You  are  desirous,  you  inform  me,  to  re- 
ceive from  me  some  one  topic  of  reason  which  shall  de- 
monstrate the  truth  of  the  Christian  rehgion,  and  at  the 
same  time  distinguish  it  from  the  impostures  of  Mohammed 
and  the  heathen  deities,  that  our  deists  may  be  brought  to 
this  test,  and  be  obliged  either  to  renounce  their  reason, 
and  the  common  reason  of  mankind,  or  to  admit  the  clear 
proof,  from  reason,  of  the  revelation  of  Christ ;  which 


AXD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


259 


must  be  such  a  proof  as  no  impostor  can  pretend  to,  other- 
wise it  ^Yi\l  not  prove  Christianity  not  to  be  an  imposture. 
And  you  cannot  but  imagine,  you  add,  that  there  must  be 
such  a  proof,  because  every  truth  is  in  itself  one  :  and 
therefore  one  reason  for  it,  if  it  be  a  true  reason,  must  be 
sufficient;  and,  if  sufficient,  better  than  many,  because 
multiplicity  creates  confusion,  especially  in  weak  judgments. 

Sir,  you  have  imposed  a  hard  task  upon  me  :  I  wish  I 
could  perform  it.  For,  though  every  truth  be  one,  yet  our 
sight  is  so  feeble  that  we  cannot  always  come  to  it  directly, 
but  by  many  inferences  and  laymgs  of  things  together. 
But  I  think  that  in  the  case  before  us  there  is  such  a  proof 
as  you  desire,  and  I  will  set  it  down  as  shortly  and  as 
plainly  as  I  can. 

I  suppose,  then,  that  the  truth  of  the  Christian  doctrines 
will  be  sufficiently  evinced  if  the  matters  of  fact  recorded 
of  Christ  in  the  gospels  are  proved  to  be  true ;  for  his  mir- 
acles, if  true,  established  the  truth  of  what  he  delivered. 
The  same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  Moses.  If  he  led  the 
cliildren  of  Israel  through  the  Red  Sea,  and  did  such  other 
w-onderful  things  as  are  recorded  of  him  in  the  book  of 
Exodus,  it  must  necessarily  follow  that  he  was  sent  by  God  ; 
these  being  the  sti'ongest  evidences  we  can  require,  and 
which  every  deist  wall  confess  he  would  admit  if  he  himself 
had  witnessed  their  performance.  So  that  the  stress  of 
this  cause  will  depend  upon  the  j)roof  of  these  matters  of 
fact. 

With  a  view,  therefore,  to  this  proof,  I  shall  proceed, 

I.  To  lay  down  such  marks,  as  to  the  truth  of  matters 
of  fact  in  general,  that,  where  they  all  meet,  such  matters 
of  fact  cannot  be  false  :  and, 

II.  To  show  that  they  all  do  meet  in  the  matters  of 
fact  of  Moses  and  of  Christ,  and  do  not  meet  in  those 


260  watson's  theological  msTinjTES 


reported  of  Mohammed  and  of  the  heathen  deities,  nor 
can  possibly  meet  in  any  imposture  whatsoever. 
I.  The  marks  are  these  : — 

1.  That  the  fact  be  sucb  as  men's  outward  senses  can 
judge  of : 

2.  That  it  be  performed  publicly,  in  the  presence  of 
witnesses : 

3.  That  there  he  public  monuments  and  actions  kept  up 
in  memory  of  it :  and 

4.  That  such  monuments  and  actions  shall  be  estab- 
lished, and  commence,  at  the  time  of  the  fact. 

The  first  two  of  these  marks  make  it  impossible  for  any 
false  fact  to  be  imposed  upon  men  at  the  time  when  it  was 
said  to  be  done,  because  every  man's  senses  would  contra- 
dict it.  For  example  :  sujipose  I  should  pretend  that,  yes- 
terday, I  divided  the  Thames,  m  the  presence  of  all  the 
people  of  London,  and  led  the  whole  city  over  to  South- 
wark  on  dry  land,  the  waters  standing  like  walls  on  each 
side :  it  would  be  morally  impossible  for  me  to  convince 
the  people  of  London  that  this  was  true,  when  every  man, 
Avoman,  and  child  could  contradict  me,  and  affirm  that  they 
had  not  seen  the  Thames  so  divided,  nor  been  led  over  to 
Southwark  on  dry  land.  I  take  it,  then,  for  granted  (and, 
I  apprehend,  with  the  allowance  of  all  the  deists  in  the 
world)  that  no  such  imposition  could  be  put  upon  mankind 
at  the  time  when  such  matter  of  fact  was  said  to  be  done. 

"  But,"  it  may  be  urged,  "  the  ftict  might  be  invented 
when  the  men  of  that  generation  in  which  it  was  said  to 
be  done  were  all  past  and  gone ;  and  the  credulity  of  after 
ages  might  be  induced  to  believe  that  things  had  been  j^cr- 
formed  in  earlier  times  which  had  not !  " 

Fi'om  this,  the  two  latter  marks  secure  us  as  much  as 
the  first  two  in  the  former  case.    For  whenever  such  a  fact 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENBED. 


261 


was  invented,  if  it  was  stated  that  not  only  public  monu- 
ments of  it  remained,  but  likewise  that  public  actions  or 
observances  had  been  kept  up  in  memory  of  it  ever  since, 
the  deceit  must  be  detected  by  no  such  monuments  appear- 
ing, and  by  the  experience  of  every  man,  woman,  and 
child,  who  must  know  that  no  such  actions«or  observances 
had  ever  taken  place.  For  example :  suppose  I  should  now 
fabricate  a  story  of  something  done  a  thousand  years  ago. 
I  might  perhaps  get  a  few  persons  to  belie-we  me  ;  but  if  I 
were  farther  to  add,  that  from  that  day  to  this  every  man, 
at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  had  a  joint  of  his  Uttle  finger  cut 
off  in  memory  of  it,  and  that  ofcourse  every  man  then  living 
actually  wanted  a  joint  of  that  finger,  and  vouched  this  in- 
stitution in  confirmation  of  its  truth — it  would  be  morally 
impossible  for  me  to  gain  credit  in  such  a  case,  because 
every  man  then  living  would  contradict  me  as  to  the  cir- 
cumstance of  cutting  off  a  joint  of  the  finger ;  and  that, 
being  an  essential  part  of  my  original  matter  of  fact,  must 
prove  the  whole  to  be  false. 

n.  Let  us  now  come  to  the  second  point,  and  show  that 
all  these  marks  do  meet  in  the  matters  of  fact  of  Moses 
and  of  Christ,  and  do  not  meet  in  those  reported  of 
Mohammed  and  of  the  heathen  deities,  nor  can  possibly 
meet  in  any  imposture  whatsoever. 

As  to  Moses,  he,  I  take  it  for  granted,  could  not  have 
persuaded  six  hundred  thousand  men  that  he  had  brought 
them  out  of^Egypt  by  the  Red  Sea,  fed  them  f(?fty  years 
with  miraculous  manna,  &c.,  if  it  had  not  been  true  :  be- 
cause the  senses  of  every  man  who  was  then  alive  would 
have  contradicted  him.  So  that  here  are  the  first  two 
marks. 

For  the  same  reason  it  would  have  been  equally  impos- 
sible for  him  to  have  made  them  receive  his  five  books  as 


262  -watson's  theological  institutes 

true  whicli  related  all  these  as  done  before  their  eyes,  if 
they  had  not  been  so  done.  Observe  how  positively  he 
speaks  to  them  :  "  And  know  you  this  day,  for  I  speak  not 
with  your  children,  which  have  not  known,  and  which  have 
not  seen  the  chastisement  of  the  Lord  your  God,  his  great- 
ness, his  mighty  hand,  and  his  stretchcd-out  arm,  and  his 
miracles  ;  but  your  eyes  have  seen  all  the  great  acts  of 
the  Lord  which  he  did."  (Deut.  xi,  2-7.)  Hence  we  must 
admit  it  to  be  impossible  that  these  books,  if  written  by 
Moses  in  support  of  an  imposture,  could  have  been  put 
upon  the  people  who  were  alive  at  the  time  when  such 
things  were  said  to  be  done. 

"  But  they  might  have  been  written,"  it  may  be  urged, 
"  in  some  age  after  Moses,  and  published  as  his  !  " 

To  this  I  reply  that,  if  it  were  so,  it  was  impossible  they 
should  have  been  received  as  such  ;  because  they  speak  of 
themselves  as  delivered  by  Moses,  and  ke-pt  in  the  ark  from 
his  time  (Deut.  xxxi,  24-26),  and  state  that  a  copy  of  them 
was  likewise  deposited  in  the  hands  of  the  king,  "  that  he 
might  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,  to  keep  all  the  words 
of  this  law  and  these  statutes,  to  do  them."  (Deut.  xvii, 
19.)  Here  these  books  expressly  represent  themselves  as 
being  not  only  the  civil  history,  but  also  the  established 
municipal  law  of  the  Jews,  binding  the  king  as  well  as  the 
people.  Li  whatever  age,  therefore,  after  Moses  they 
might  have  been  forged  it  was  impossible  they  should  have 
gained  a*ly  credit,  because  they  could  not  then  have  been 
found  either  in  the  ark,  or  with  the  king,  or  anywhere  else ; 
and,  when  they  were  first  published,  every  body  must  know 
that  tliey  had  never  heard  of  them  before. 

And  they  could  still  less  receive  them  as  their  book  of 
statutes,  and  the  standing  law  of  the  land,  by  which  they 
had  all  along  been  governed.    Could  any  man,  at  this  day. 


AUD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED, 


263 


invent  a  set  of  acts  of  parliament  for  England,  and  make 
it  pass  upon  the  nation  as  the  only  book  of  statutes  which 
they  had  ever  knowTi?  As  impossible  was  it  for  these 
books,  if  written  in  any  age  after  Moses,  to  have  been  re- 
ceived for  what  they  declare  themselves  to  be,  that  is,  the 
rnunicipal  law  of  the  Jeics  ;  and  for  any  man  to  have  per- 
suaded that  people  that  they  had  owned  them  as  their  code 
of  statutes  from  the  time  of  Moses,  that  is,  before  they  had 
ever  heard  of  them !  Xay,  more  :  they  must  instantly 
have  forgotten  their  former  laws  if  they  could  receive  these 
books  as  such  ;  and  as  such  only  could  they  receive  them, 
because  such  they  vouched  themselves  to  be.  Let  me  ask 
the  deists  but  one  short  question  :  "  Was  a  book  of  sham 
laws  ever  palmed  upon  any  nation  since  the  world  began  ?" 
If  not,  with  what  face  can  they  say  this  of  the  law  books 
of  the  Jews  ?  Why  will  they  affirm  that  of  them  which 
they  admit  never  to  have  happened  in  any  other  instance  ? 

But  they  must  be  still  more  unreasonable,  for  the  books 
of  Moses  have  an  ampler  demonstration  of  their  truth  than 
even  other  law  books  have  ;  as  they  not  only  contain  the 
laws  themselves,  but  give  an  historical  account  of  their 
institution  and  regular  fulfilment :  of  the  passover,  for  in- 
stance, in  memory  of  their  sujDernatural  protection  upon 
the  slaying  of  the  first-born  of  Egypt ;  the  dedication  of 
the  first-born  of  Israel,  both*  of  man  and  beast ;  the  pres- 
ervation of  Aaron's  rod,  which  budded,  of  the  pot  of 
manna,  and  of  the  brazen  serpent,  which  remained  till  the 
days  of  Hezekiah.  (2  Kings,  xrviii,  4,  &c.)  And,  besides  these 
memorials  of  particular  occurrences,  there  were  other  sol- 
emn obseiwances,  in  general  memory  of  their  deliverance 
out  of  EgyiJt,  &c.,  as  their  annual  expiations,  their  new 
moons,  their  sabbaths,  and  their  ordinary  sacrifices ;  so 
that  there  were  yearly,  monthly,  weekly,  and  daily  recog- 


264  watson's  theological  institutes 


nilions  of  these  things.  The  same  books  likewise  farther 
inform  iis  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  were  appointed  and  conse- 
crated by  God  as  his  ministers,  by  whom  alone  these  insti- 
tutions were  to  be  celebrated :  that  it  was  death  for  any 
others  to  approach  the  altar ;  that  their  high  priest  wore 
a  brilliant  mitre  and  magnificent  robes,  with  the  miraculous 
Urim  and  Thummim  in  his  breastplate  ;  that  at  his  word 
all  the  people  were  to  go  out,  and  to  come  in  ;  that  these 
Levites  were  also  their  judges,  even  in  all  civil  causes,  &c. 

Hence,  too,  therefore,  in  whatever  age  after  Moses  they 
might  have  been  forged,  it  was  impossible  they  should  have 
gained  any  credit,  unless  indeed  the  fabricators  could  have 
made  the  whole  nation  believe,  in  spite  of  their  invariable 
experience  to  the  contrary,  that  they  had  received  these 
books  long  before  from  their  fathers ;  had  been  taught 
them  when  they  Avere  children,  and  had  taught  them  to 
their  own  children  ;  that  they  had  been  circumcised  them- 
selves, and  had  circumcised  their  families,  and  uniformly 
observed  their  whole  minute  detail  of  sacrifices  and  cere- 
monies; that  they  had  never  eaten  any  swine's  flesh,  or 
other  prohibited  meats ;  that  they  had  a  splendid  taber- 
nacle, with  a  regular  priesthood  to  administer  in  it,  con- 
fined to  one  particular  tribe,  and  a  superintendent  high 
priest,  whose  death  alone  could  deliver  those  that  had  fled 
to  the  cities  of  refuge ;  that  these  priests  were  their  ordi- 
nary judges,  even  in  civil  matters,  &c.  But  this  would 
surely  have  been  impossible  if  none  of  these  things  had 
been  practised ;  and  it  would  consequently  have  been  im- 
possible to  circulate  as  true  a  set  of  books  which  affirmed 
that  they  had  practised  them,  and  upon  that  practice  rested 
their  own  pretensions  to  acceptance.  So  that  here  are  the 
two  latter  marks. 

"  But,"  to  advance  to  the  utmost  degree  of  supposition, 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


265 


it  may  be  urged,  "  These  things  might  have  been  practised 
prior  to  this  alleged  forgery ;  and  those  books  only  deceived 
the  nation  by  making  them  believe  that  they  were  practised 
in  memory  of  such  and  such  occurrences  as  were  then  in- 
vented !  " 

In  this  hypothesis,  however  groundless,  the  same  impos- 
sibilities press  upon  our  notice  as  before:  for  it  implies 
that  the  Jews  had  i^reviously  kept  these  observances  in 
memory  of  nothing,  or  without  knowing  why  they  kept 
them  ;  whereas,  in  all  their  particulars,  they  strikingly  ex- 
press their  original ;  as  the  passover,  instituted  in  memory 
of  God's  passing  over  the  children  of  the  Israelites  when  he 
slew  the  first-born  of  Egypt,  &c. 

Let  us  admit,  however  contrary  both  to  probability  and 
to  matter  of  fact,  that  they  did  not  know  why  they  kept 
these  observances ;  yet  was  it  possible  to  persuade  them 
that  they  were  kept  in  memory  of  something  which  they 
had  never  heard  of  before?  For  example:  suppose  I 
should  now  forge  some  romantic  story  of  strange  things 
done  a  long  while  ago ;  and,  in  confirmation  of  this,  should 
endeavor  to  convince  the  Christian  world  that  they  had 
regularly,  from  that  period  to  this,  kept  holy  the  first  day 
of  the  week  in  memory  of  such  or  such  a  man  :  a  Ctesar,  or 
a  Mohammed ;  and  had  all  been  baptized  in  his  name,  and 
sworn  by  it  upon  the  very  book  which  I  had  then  fabri- 
cated, and  which  of  course  they  had  never  seen  before  in 
their  public  courts  of  judicature;  that  this  book  likewise 
contained  their  law,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  which  they  had 
ever  since  his  time  acknowledged,  and  no  other: — I  ask 
any  deist  whether  he  thinks  it  possible  that  such  a  cheat 
could  be  received  as  the  gospel  of  Christians,  or  not  ?  The 
same  reason  holds  with  regard  to  the  books  of  Moses,  and 
must  hold  with  regard  to  every  book  which  contains  mat- 

12 


266  Watson's  theological  institutes 


ters  of  fact  accompanied  by  the  abovementioned  four 
marks":  for  these  marks,  together,  secure  mankmd  from 
imposition,  with  regard  to  any  false  fact,  as  well  in  after 
ages  as  at  the  time  when  it  was  said  to  be  done. 

Let  me  produce,  as  another  and  a  famUiar  illustration, 
the  Stonelmige  of  Salisbury  Plain.  Almost  everybody  has 
seen  or  heard  of  it ;  and  yet  nobody  knows  by  whom  or  in 
memory  of  what  it  was  set  \\\). 

Now,  suppose  I  should  write  a  book  to-morrow,  and 
state  in  it  that  these  huge  stones  were  erected  by  a  Cresar 
or  a  Mohammed,  in  memory  of  such  and  such  of  their 
actions  ;  and  should  further  add,  that  this  book  was  written 
at  the  time  when  those  actions  were  performed,  and  by  the 
doers  themselves,  or  by  eye-witnesses ;  and  had  been  con- 
stantly received  as  true,  and  quoted  by  authors  of  the 
greatest  credit  in  regular  succession  ever  since  ;  that  it  was 
well  known  in  England,  and  even  enjoined  by  act  of  parHa- 
ment  to  be  taught  our  children,  and  that  we  accordingly 
did  teach  it  our  children,  and  had  been  taught  it  ourselves 
when  we  were  children ; — would  this,  I  demand  of  any  deist, 
pass  current  in  England  ?  Or,  rather,  should  not  I,  or  any 
other  person  who  might  insist  upon  its  reception,  instead 
of  being  believed,  be  considered  insane  ? 

Let  us  compare,  then,  this  rude  structure  with  the 
Stonehenge,  as  I  may  call  it,  or  "  twelve  stones  "  set  up  at 
Gilgal,  Josh.  iv.  C.  It  is  there  said  that  the  reason  why 
they  were  set  up  was,  that  when  the  children  of  the  Jews, 
in  after  ages,  should  ask  their  meaning,  it  should  be  told 
them,  chap,  iv,  20-22.  And  the  thing  in  memory  of  which 
they  were  set  up,  t\\&  passage  over  Jordan,  was  such  as 
could  not  possibly  have  been  imposed  upon  that  people 
at  the  time  when  it  was  said  to  be  done  :  it  was  not  less 
miraculous,  and  from  the  previous  notice,  preparations, 


AIJD  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


267 


and  other  striking  circumstances  of  its  performance,  chap, 
iii,  5,  15,  still  more  unassailable  by  the  petty  cavils  of  infidel 
sophistry,  than  their  passage  through  the  Red  Sea. 

Now,  to  form  our  argument,  let  us  suppose  that  there 
never  was  any  such  thing  as  that  passage  over  Jordan ; 
that  these  stones  at  Gilgal  had  been  set  up  on  some  un- 
known occasion  ;  and  that  some  designing  man,  in  an  after 
age,  invented  this  book  of  Joshua ;  affirmed  that  it  M'as 
■\mtten  at  the  time  of  that  imaginary  event  by  Joshua 
himself,  and  adduced  this  pile  of  stones  as  a  testimony  of 
its  truth  : — would  not  everybody  say  to  him,  "  We  know 
this  pile  very  well,  but  we  never  before  heard  of  this  reason 
for  it,  nor  of  this  book  of  Joshua.  Where  has  it  lain  con- 
cealed all  this  while?  and  where  and  how  came  you,  after 
so  long  a  period,  to  find  it  ?  Besides,  it  informs  us  that 
this  passage  over  Jordan  was  solemnly  directed  to  be 
taught  our  children  from  age  to  age ;  and,  to  that  end, 
that  they  were  always  to  be  instructed  in  the  meaning  of 
this  particular  monument ;  but  we  were  never  taught  it 
ourselves  when  we  were  children,  nor  did  we  ever  teach  it 
to  our  children.  And  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable 
that  such  an  emphatic  ordinance  should  have  been  forgotten 
during  the  continuance  of  so  remarkable  a  pile  of  stones, 
set  up  expressly  for  the  purjjose  of  preserving  its  remem- 
brance." 

If,  then,  for  these  reasons,  no  such  fabrication  could  be 
put  upon  us  as  to  the  stones  in  Salisbury  Plain,  how  much 
less  could  it  succeed  as  to  the  stonage  at  Gilgal  ?  If,  where 
we  arc  ignorant  of  the  true  origin  of  a  mere  naked  monu- 
ment, such  a  sham  origin  cannot  be  imposed,  how  much  less 
practicable  would  it  be  to  impose  upon  us  in  actions  and 
observances  which  we  celcbi*ate  in  memory  of  what  we 
actually  know  ;  to  make  us  forget  what  we  have  regularly 


268  Watson's  theological  institutes 


commemorated;  and  to  persuade  us  that  "we  have  con- 
stantly kept  such  and  such  institutions  with  reference  to 
something  which  we  never  heard  of  before ;  that  is,  that 
we  knew  something  before  we  knew  it !  And  if  we  find  it 
thus  impossible -to  practise  deceit,  even  in  cases  which  have 
not  the  above  four  marks,  how  much  more  impossible  must 
It  be  that  any  deceit  should  be  practised  in  cases  in  which 
all  these  four  marks  meet ! 

In  the  matters  of  fact  of  Christ  likewise,  as  well  as  in 
those  of  Moses,  these  four  marks  are  to  be  found.  The 
reasoning,  indeed,  which  has  already  been  advanced  with 
respect  to  the  Old  Testament,  is  generally  applicable  to  the 
New.  The  miracles  of  Christ,  hke  those  of  Moses,  were 
such  as  men's  outward  senses  could  judge  of,  and  were  per- 
formed publicly.)  in  the  presence  of  those  to  whom  the 
history  of  them,  contained  in  the  gospel,  was  addressed. 
And  it  is  related  that  "  about  three  thousand  "  at  one  time, 
Acts  ii,  41,  and  about  "five  thousand"  at  another,  iv,  4, 
were  converted  in  consequence  of  what  they  themselves 
saw  and  heard,  in  matters  where  it  was  impossible  that  they 
should  have  been  deceived.  Here,  therefore,  were  the  first 
two  marks. 

And  with  regard  to  the  latter  two,  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper  were  instituted  as  memorials  of  certain 
things,  not  in  after  ages,  but  at  the  time  when  these  things 
were  said  to  be  done ;  and  have  been  strictly  observed, 
from  that  time  to  this,  without  interruption.  Christ  him- 
»  self  also  ordained  apostles,  &c.,  to  preach  and  admuiister  his 
ordinances,  and  to  govern  his  church,  "  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  Now  the  Christian  ministry  is  as  notorious 
a  matter  of  fact  among  us  as  the  setting  apart  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi  was  among  the  Jews ;  and  as  the  era  and  object  of 
their  appointment  are  part  of  the  gospel  narrative,  if  that 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


269 


narrative  had  been  a  fiction  of  some  subsequent  age  at  the 
time  of  its  fabrication  no  .such  order  of  men  could  have 
been  found,  which  would  have  eifectually  given  the  lie  to 
the  whole  story.  And  the  truth  of  the  matters  of  fact  of 
Christ  being  no  otherwise  asserted  than  as  there  were  at 
the  time  (whenever  the  deist  Avill  suppose  the  gospel  to 
have  been  fabricated)  public  ordinances  and  a  public  min- 
istry of  his  institution  to  dispense  them,  and  it  being  im- 
possible, upon  this  hypothesis,  that  there  could  be  any  such 
things  then  in  existence,  we  must  admit  it  to  be  equally 
impossible  that  the  forgery  should  have  been  successful. 
Hence  it  was  as  impossible  to  deceive  mankind,  in  respect 
to  these  matters  of  fact,  by  inventing  them  in  after  ages,  as 
at  the  time  when  they  were  said  to  be  done. 

The  matters  of  fact  reported  of  Mohammed  and  of  the 
heathen  deities  do  all  want  some  of  these  four  marks,  by 
which  the  certainty  of  facts  is  established.  Mohammed 
himself,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  Koran  (vi,  &c.),  pretended  to 
no  miracles  ;  and  those  which  are  commonly  related  of  him 
pass,  even  among  his  followers,  for  ridiculous  legends,  and 
as  such  are  rejected  by  their  scholai-s  and  philosophers. 
They  have  not  either  of  the  first  two  marks  ;  for  his  con- 
verse with  the  moon,  his  night  journey  from  Mecca  to 
Jerusalem,  and  thence  to  heaven,  &c.,  were  not  performed 
before  any  witnesses,  nor  was  the  tour  indeed  of  a  nature 
to  admit  human  attestation  ;  and  to  the  two  latter  they  do 
not  even  aflfect  to  advance  any  claim. 

The  same  may  be  afiirmed,  with  little  variation,  of  the 
stories  of  the  heathen  deities :  of  Mercury's  stealing  sheep, 
Jupiter's  transforming  himself  into  a  bull,  etc.,  besides  the 
absurdity  of  such  degrading  and  profligate  adventures. 
And  accordingly  Ave  find  that  the  more  enlightened  pagans 
themselves  considered  them  as  fables  involving  a  mystical 


270 


AVATSOn's  theological  ESrSTITUTES 


meaning,  of  which  several  of  their  writers  have  endeavor- 
ed to  give  us  the  explication.  .It  is  true  these  gods  had 
their  priests,  their  feasts,  their  games,  and  other  public 
ceremonies ;  but  all  these  want  the  fourth  mark,  of  com- 
mencing at  the  time  when  the  things  which  they  commem- 
orate were  said  to  have  been  done.  Hence  they  cannot 
secure  mankind  in  subsequent  ages  from  imposture,  as  they 
furnish  no  internal  means  qf  detection  at  the  period  of  the 
forgery.  The  Bacchanalia,  for  example,  and  other  heathen 
festivals,  were  established  long  after  the  events  to  which 
they  refer ;  and  the  jariests  of  Juno,  Mars,  &c.,  were  not 
ordained  by  those  imaginary  deities,  but  appointed  by 
others  in  some  after  age,  and  are  therefore  no  evidence  to 
the  truth  of  their  preternatural  achievements. 
To  apply  what  has  been  said : 

We  may  challenge  all  the  deists  in  the  world  to  show 
any  fabulous  action  accompanied  by  these  four  marks.  The 
thing  is  impossible.  The  histories  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  never  could  have  been  received  if  they  had 
not  been  true ;  because  the  priesthoods  of  Levi  and  of 
Christ,  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  the  passover,  and 
circumcision,  and  the  ordinances  of  baj)tism  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  &c.,.arc  there  represented  as  descending  uninter- 
ruptedly from  the  times  of  their  respective  institution.  And 
it  would  have  been  as  impossible  to  persuade  men  in  after 
ages  that  they  had  been  circumcised  or  baptized,  and  cele- 
brated passovers,  Sabbaths,  and  other  ordinances,  under  the 
ministration  of  a  certain  order  of  priests,  if  they  had  dono 
none  of  those  things,  as  to  make  them  believe  at  the  time, 
without  any  real  foundation,  that  they  had  gone  through 
seas  on  dry  land,  seen  the  dead  raised,  &c.  But  without 
such  a  persuasion  it  was  impossible  that  cither  the  law  or 
the  gospel  could  have  been  received.   And  the  truth  of  the 


AND  TUE  BIBLE  DEFENDED, 


271 


matters  of  fact  of  each  being  no  otherwise  asserted  than  as 
such  pubhc  ceremonies  had  been  previously  practised,  their 
certainty  is  established  upon  the  full  conviction  op  the 

SENSES  OF  MANKIND. 

I  do  not  say  that  everything  which  wants  these  four 
marks  is  false;  but  that  everything  which  has  them  all 
must  be  true. 

I  can  have  no  doubt  that  there  was  such  a  man  as  Julius 
Cajsar ;  that  he  conquered  at  PharsaUa,  and  was  killed  iu 
the  senate  house,  though  neither  his  actions  nor  his  assassi- 
nation be  commemorated  by  any  pubHc  observances.  But 
this  shows  that  the  matters  of  fact  of  Moses  and  of  Christ 
have  come  down  to  us  better  certified  than  any  other  what- 
soever. And  yet  our  deists,  who  would  consider  any  one 
as  hoi)elessly  irrational  that  should  offer  to  deny  the  exist- 
ence of  Ctesar,  value  themselves  as  the  only  men  of  profound 
sense  and  judgment  for  ridiculing  the  histories  of  Moses 
and  of  Christ,  though  guarded  by  infallible  marks,  which 
that  of  Cajsar  wants. 

Besides,  the  nature  of  the  subject  would  of  itself  lead 
to  a  more  minute  examination  of  the  one  than  of  the  other : 
for  of  what  consequence  is  it  to  me,  or  to  the  world,  whether 
there  ever  was  such  a  man  as  Cajsar :  whether  he  conquered 
at  Pharsalia,  and  was  killed  in  the  senate  house,  or  not  ? 
But  our  eternal  welfare  is  concerned  m  the  truth  of  what  is 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures  ;  whence  they  would  naturally 
be  more  narrowly  scrutinized  when  proposed  for  acceptance, 

IIow  unreasonable,  then,  is  it  to  reject  matters  of  fact  so 
important,  so  sifted,  and  so  attested ;  and  yet  to  think  it 
absurd,  even  to  madness,  to  deny  other  matters  of  fact, 
which  have  not  the  thousandth  part  of  their  evidence,  have 
had  comparatively  little  investigation,  and  are  of  no  con- 
sequence at  all ! 


272  watson's  theological  institutes 


THE  TRUTH  OF  CHRISTIANITY  DEMONSTRATED. 

To  the  preceding  four  marks,  which  are  common  to  the 
matters  of  fact  of  Moses  and  of  Christ,  I  now  jiroceed  to 
subjoin  four  additional  marks ;  the  three  last  of  which,  no 
matter  of  fact,  how  true  soever,  either  has  had,  or  can  have, 
except  that  of  Christ. 

This  will  obviously  appear  if  it  be  considered, 

5.  That  the  book  which  relates  the  facts  contains  like- 
wise the  laws  of  the  people  to  whom  it  belongs : 

6.  That  Christ  was  previously  announced,  for  that  very 
period,  by  a  long  train  of  2^rophecies  ;  and, 

7.  Still  more  peculiarly  prefigured  by  types^  both  of  a 
circumstantial  and  personal  nature,  from  the  earliest  ages ; 
and, 

8.  That  the  facts  of  Christianity  are  such  as  to  make  it 
impossible  for  cither  their  relators  or  hearers  to  believe 
them,  if  false,  without  supposing  a  universal  deception  of 
the  senses  of  mankind. 

The  ffth  marJc,  which  has  been  subordinately  discussed 
in  the  former  part  of  this  tract  in  sifch  a  manner  as  to  su- 
persede the  necessity  of  dwelling  upon  it  in  this,  renders  it 
impossible  for  any  one  to  have  imposed  such  a  book  upon 
any  people.  For  example  :  suppose  I  should  forge  a  code 
of  laws  for  Great  Britain,  and  publish  it  next  term  ;  could 
I  hope  to  persuade  the  judges,  lawyers,  and  people,  that 
this  was  their  genuine  statute  book,  by  which  all  their  causes 
had  been  determined  in  the  public  courts  for  so  many  centu- 
ries past  ?  Before  they  could  be  brought  to  this,  they  must 
totally  forget  their  established  laws,  which  they  had  so  la- 
boriously committed  to  memory,  and  so  familiarly  quoted 
in  every  day's  practice,  and  beheve  that  this  new  book, 
which  they  had  never  seen  before,  was  that  old  book  which 


A>"D  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


273 


had  been  pleaded  so  long  in  Westminster  Hall,  M-hich  bad 
been  so  often  printed,  and  of  which  the  originals  are  now 
so  carefully  preserved  in  the  Tower, 

This  applies  strongly  to  the  books  of  Moses,  in  which, 
not  only  the  history  of  the  Jews,  but  likewise  their  whole 
law,  secular  and  ecclesiastical,  was  contained.  And  though, 
from  the  early  extension  and  destined  imiversality  of  the 
Christian  system,  it  could  not,  without  unnecessary  confu- 
sion, furnish  a  uniform  civil  code  to  all  its  various  followers, 
who  were  already  under  the  government  of  laws  in  some 
degree  adapted  to  their  respective  climates  and  characters, 
yet  was  it  intended  as  the  si^-itual  guide  of  the  new  church. 
And  in  this  respect  this  mark  is  still  stronger  \\  ith  regard  to 
the  gospel  than  even  to  the  books  of  JMoses ;  inasmuch  as  it 
is  easier  (however  hard)  to  imagine  the  substitution  of  an 
entire  statute-book  in  one  particular  nation,  than  that  all 
the  nations  of  Christendom  should  have  unanimously  con- 
spired in  the  forgery.  But  without  such  a  conspiracy  such 
a  forgery  could  never  have  succeeded,  as  the  gospel  univer- 
sally formed  a  regular  part  of  their  daily  public  offices. 

But  I  hasten  to  the  sixth  metric^  namely,  projyheci/. 

The  great  fact  of  Christ's  coming  was  previously  an- 
nounced to  the  Jetos,  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  by  all  the 
holy  prophets  which  have  been  since  the  world  began," 
Luke  i,  70. 

The  first  promise  upon  the  subject  was  made  to  Adam 
immediately  after  the  fall.  Gen.  iii,  15,  Compare  Col.  ii,  15, 
and  Heb,  ii.  14. 

He  was  again  repeatedly  promised  to  Abraham,  Gen, 
xii,  3  ;  xviii,  18,  and  xxii,  18;  Gal.  iii,  16;  to  Isaac,  Gen. 
xxvi,  4  ;  and  to  Jacob,  Gen.  xxviii,  14. 

Jacob  expressly  prophesied  of  him  under  the  appellation 
of  "  Shiloh,''  or  Ifim  that  was  to  be  sent,  Gen.  xUx.  10. 

12* 


274  watson's  theological  institutes 


Balaam,  also,  with  the  voice  of  inspiration,  pronounced  him 
"  the  Star  of  Jacob  and  the  sceptre  of  Israel,"  Num.  xxiv, 
17.  Moses  spoke  of  him  as  One  "greater  than  himself," 
Deut.  xviii,  15,  18,  19  ;  Acts  iii,  22  ;  and  Daniel  hailed  his 
arrival  under  the  name  of  "Messiah  the  Prince,"  chap, 
ix,  25. 

It  was  foretold  that  he  should  be  born  of  a  virgin,  Isa. 
vii,  14;  in  the  city  of  Bethlehem,  Micah  v,  2 ;  of  the  seed 
of  Jesse,  Isa.  xi,  1,  10  ;  that  he  'should  lead  a  life  of  poverty 
and  suffering,  Psa.  xxii ;  inflicted  upon  him,  "  not  for  him- 
self," Dan.  ix,  26,  but  for  the  sins  of  others,  Isa.  liii;  and, 
after  a  short  confinement  in  the  grave,  should  rise  again, 
Psa.  xvi,  10;  Acts  ii,  27,  31,  and  xiii,  35,  37  ;  that  he 
"  should  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David  forever,"  and  be 
called  "  the  mighty  God,"  Isa.  ix,  6,  7  ;  "  the  Lord  our 
righteousness,"  Jer.  xxxiii,  16  ;  "  Immanuel,  that  is,  God 
with  us,"  Isa.  vii.  14;  Matt,  i,  23  ;  and  by  David  himself, 
whose  son  he  was  according  to  the  flesh,  "  Lord,"  Psa.  cx, 
1  ;  applied  to  Christ  by  himself.  Matt,  xxii,  44,  and  by  Pe- 
ter, Acts  ii,  34. 

The  time  of  his  incarnation  was  to  be  before  "  the  scep- 
tre should  depart  from  Judah,"  Gen.  xlix,  10  ;  during  the 
continuance  of  the  second  temple.  Hag.  ii,  7,  9,  and  within 
seventy  weeks,  or  490  days,  that  is,  according  to  the  con- 
stant interpretation  of  prophecy,  490  years  from  its  erection, 
Dan.  ix,  24. 

From  these,  and  many  other  predictions,  the  coming  of 
Christ  was  at  all  times  the  general  expectation  of  the  Jews, 
and  fully  matured  at  the  time  of  his  actual  advent,  as  may 
be  inferred  from  the  number  of  fiilse  messiahs  who  appeared 
about  that  period. 

That  he  was  likewise  the  expectation  of  the  Gentiles  (in 
conformity  to  the  prophecies  of  Gen.  xxix,  10,  and  Hag.  ii, 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


275 


7,  where  the  terras  "  pcoiilo  "  and  "  nations  "  denote  the 
heathen  world),  is  evinced  by  the  coming  of  the  wise  men 
from  the  East,  &c.  ;  a  story  which  would,  of  covn-sc,  have 
been  contradicted  by  some  of  the  individuals  so  disgrace- 
fully concerned  in  it,  if  the  fact  of  their  arrival,  and  tlio 
consequent  massacre  of  the  infimts  in  and  about  Bcthlclicni 
had  not  been  fresh  in  every  one's  memory  :  by  them,  lur 
instance,  who  afterward  suborned  false  "n'ituesscs  against 
Christ,  and  gave  large  money  to  the  soldiers  to  conceal,  if 
possible,  the  event  of  his  resurrection  ;  or  them  who,  in 
still  later  days,  everywhere  zealously  "spake  against"  the 
tenets  and  practices  of  his  rising  cUureli. 

All  over  the  East,  indeed,  tlierc  was  a  general  tradition, 
that  about  that  time  a  kiiuj  of  tha  Jj;ws  iroiilj  he  born, 
tcho  should  govern  the  ichole  earth.  T'"^  prcxailed  so 
strongly  at  Rome,  a  few  months  before  tlie  birUi  of  Augus- 
tus, that  the  senate  made  a  decree  to  expose  all  the  chil- 
dren born  that  year  ;  but  the  execution  of  it  was  eluded  by 
a  trick  of  some  of  the  senators,  who,  from  the  pregnancy 
of  their  wives,  were  led  to  hope  that  they  might  be  the 
fathers  of  the  promised  prince.  Its  currency  is  also  re- 
corded M'ith  a  remarkable  identity  of  phrase,  by  the  pens 
of  Suetonius  and  Tacitus.  Now,  that  in  this  there  Avas  no 
collusion  between  the  Clialdeans,  Romans,  aud  Jews,  is  suf- 
ficiently proved  by  the  desperate  methods  suggested,  or 
carried  into  effect,  for  its  discDnililtnc.  Nor,  in  fact,  is  it 
jiracticable  for  whole  nations  of  conlcuiporary  (and  still 
less,  if  possible,  for  those  of  successive)  generations  to  con- 
cert a  story  perfectly  harmonious  in  all  its  mhiute  accom- 
paniments of  time,  place,  manner,  and  other  circumstances. 

In  addition  to  the  above  general  predictions  of  the  com- 
ing, life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  there  are'others 
which  foretell  still  more  strikingly  several  particular  inci- 


276  watson's  theological  institutes 


dents  of  the  gospel  narrative ;  instances  unparalleled  in  the 
whole  range  of  history,  and  which  could  have  been  fore- 
seen by  God  alone.  They  were  certainly  not  foreseen  by 
the  human  agents  concerned  in  their  execution,  or  they 
would  never  have  contributed  to  the  fulfilment  of  prophe- 
cies referred  even 'by  themselves  to  the  Messiah,  and  there- 
fore verifying  the  divine  mission  of  him  whom  they  cruci- 
fied as  an  impostor. 

Observe,  then,  how  literally  many  of  these  predictions 
were  fulfilled.  For  example:  read  Psa.  Ixix,  21,  "They 
gave  me  gall  to  eat,  and  vinegar  to  drink  ; "  and  compare 
Matt,  xxvii,  34,  "They  gave  him  vinegar  to  drink,  mingled 
with  gall."  Again,  it  is  said,  Psa.  xxii,  16-18,  "They 
pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet.  They  part  my  garments 
among  them,  and  cast  lots  upon  my  vesture ; "  *  as  if  it  had 

*  The  soldiers  did  not  tear  his  coat,  because  it  was  without  seam,  woven 
from  the  top  throughout,  and  therefore  they  cast  lots  for  it.  But  this  was 
entirely  accidental.  With  the  passage  in  the  Psalms,  as  Romans,  they 
•were  hot  likely  to  be  acquainted.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  next 
instance?,  from  Zechariah. 

And  here  it  may  be  suggested  (in  reply  to  those  who  insidiously  mag- 
nify "  the  power  of  chance,  the  ingenuity  of  accommodation,  and  the  in- 
dustry of  research,"  as  chiefly  supporting  the  credit  of  obscure  prophecy), 
that  greater  plainness  would  have  enabled  wicked  men,  as  free  agents,  to 
prevent  its  accomplishment,  when  obviously  directed  against  themselves. 
The  Jews  not  understanding  what  Christ  meant  by  his  "  lifting  up,"  John 
viii,  28 ;  xii,  32,  33  ;  and  not  knowmg  that  he  had  foretold  his  crucifixion 
to  his  apostles,  Matt,  xx,  19,  instead  of  finally  stoning  him, — the  death 
appointed  by  their  law,  Lev.  xxiv,  16,  for  blasphemy,  Matt,  xxvi,  65; 
more  than  once  menaced  against  the  Saviour,  John  viii,  59 ;  x,  33 ;  and 
actually  inflicted  upon  Stephen,  Acts  vii,  58,  for  that  offence, — uncon- 
sciously delivered  him  to  the  predicted  Roman  cross.  Again  :  the  piercing 
of  his  side  was  no  part  of  the  Roman  sentence,  but  merely  to  ascertain  his 
being  dead,  previously  to  taking  him  down  from  the  cross ;  "  that  the 
body  might  not  remain  there  on  the  Sabbath  day,"  which  commenced  that 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


277 


been  written  after^  John  xix,  23,  24.  It  is  j^redicted,  like- 
wise, Zecb.  xii,  10,  "They  shall  look  upon  me  whom  they 
have  pierced  ; "  and  we  are  told,  John  xix,  34,  that  "  one  of 
the  soldiers  with  a  spear  pierced  his  side." 

Compare  also  Psa,  xxii,  7,  8,  "All  they  that  see  me 
laugh  me  to  scorn :  they  shoot  out  their  hps,  and  shake 
their  lieads,  saying,  He  trusted  in  God  that  be  would  de- 
liver him :  let  him  deliver  him  if  he  will  have  him,"  with 
Matt,  xxvii,  39,  41,  43,  "  And  they  that  passed  by  reviled 
liim,  wagging  their  heads,  and  saying.  Come  down  from 
the  cross.  Likewise  also  the  chief  priests,  mocking  him, 
with  the  scribes  and  elders,  said.  He  trusted  in  God ;  let 
him  deliver  him  now,  if  he  will  have  him  ;  for  he  said,  I  am 
the  Son  of  God."  His  very  price,  and  the  mode  of  laying 
out  the  money,  previously  specified,  Zech.  ix,  13,  are  his- 
torically stated  by  Matthew,  in  perfect  correspondence 
with  the  prophet,  chap,  xxvii,  6,  7.  And  his  riding  into 
Jerusalem  upon  an  ass,  predicted,  Zecn,  ix,  9,  and  referred 
by  one  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Jewish  rabbis  to  the 
Messiah,  is  recorded  by  the  same  inspired  historian,  chap, 
xxi,  9.  Lastly,  it  was  foretold  that  "  he  should  make  his 
grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  rich  in  his  death,"  Isa. 
liii,  9 ;  or,  as  Dr.  Lowth  translates  the  jiassage,  "  His  grave 
was  appointed  with  the  wicked,  but  with  the  rich  man  was 
his  tomb ; "  which  prediction  was  precisely  verified  by  the 
very  improbable  incidents  of  his  being  crucified  betioeen  two 
thieves.  Matt,  xxvii,  38,  and  afterward  laid  in  the  tomb  of 
the  rich  man  o/ Arimathea,  Matt,  xxvii,  57,  60. 

Thus  do  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  without 
variation  or  ambiguity,  refer  to  the  person  and  character 

evening,  a  few  hours  after  the  crucifixion.  From  his  early  giving  %ip  the 
ghost,  however,  it  was  not  necessary  that  "  a  boue  of  him  should  be  broken," 
Esod.  xii,  46;  Num.  ix,  12;  Psa.  xxxiv,  20;  like  those  of  the  two  thieves, 
bis  fellow  sufferers,  John  xis,  32,  36. 


278  Watson's  theological  institutes 


of  Christ.  His  own  predictions  in  the  New  demand  a  few 
brief  observations. 

Tliose  rehxting  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which 
s2-)ccificd  that  it  should  be  "  laid  even  with  the  ground," 
and  "not  one  stone  be  left  u2)on  another,"  Luke  ix,  44, 
before  that  generation  passed,"  Matt,  xxiv,  34,  were  ful- 
filled in  a  most  surprisingly  literal  manner,  the  very  founda- 
tions of  the  temple  being  ploughed  up  by  Turnus  Rufus. 
In  another  remarkable  prophecy  he  announced  the  many 
false  messiahs  that  should  come  after  him,  and  the  ruin  in 
Avhicli  their  followers  should  be  involved.  Matt,  xxvi,  25, 
26.  That  great  numbers  actually  assumed  that  holy  char- 
acter before  the  final  fall  of  the  city,  and  led  the  peoj^le  into 
the  wilderness  to  their  destruction,  we  learn  from  Jose- 
l)hus,  Antiq.  Jud.  xviii,  12  ;  xx,  6,  and  B.  J,  viii,  31.  Nay, 
sucli  was  tlieir  wretched  infatuation,  that  under  this  delu- 
sion tliey  rejected  the  ofiers  of  Titus,  avIio  courted  them  to 
peace,  LI.  ]].  J.  vii,  12. 

It  will  be  sufficient  barely  to  mention  his  foretelling  the 
dispersion  of  that  unhappy  nation,  and  the  triumph  of  his 
gospel  over  the,  gates  of  hell,  under  every  possible  disad- 
vantage,— himself  low  and  despised,  his  immediate  asso- 
ciates only  twelve,  and  those  illiterate  and  unpolished,  and 
his  adversaries  tlie  allied  powers,  prejudices,  habits,  inter- 
ests, and  appetites  of  mankind. 

But  tlie  seventh  marJc  is  still  more  peculiar,  if  possible, 
to  Christ  than  even  that  of  prophecy.  For  whatever  may 
be  M-eakly  pretended  with  i  cgard  to  the  oracular  predic- 
tions of  Delphi  or  Dodona,  the  heathens  never  affected  to 
2")religare  any  future  event  by  types  or  resemblances  of  the 
fixct,  consisting  of  analogies  either  in  individuals,  or  in  sen- 
sible institutions  directed  to  be  continued,  till  the  antitype 
itself  should  make  its  appearance. 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED,  279 

These  types,  in  the  instance  of  Christ,  were  of  a  twofold 
nature,  circumstantial  and  jyersonal. 

Of  the /onnev  kind  (not  to  notice  the  general  rite  of 
sacrifice)  may  be  produced,  as  examples,  1.  The  2)assove); 
appointed  in  memory  of  that  great  night  when  the  destroy- 
ing angel,  who  slew  all  "  the  first-born  of  Egypt,"  passed 
over  those  houses  upon  whose  door-posts  the  blood  of  the 
paschal  lamb  was  siDrinkled,  and  directed  to  be  eaten  with 
what  the  ajDostle,  1  Cor.  v,  7,  8,  calls  "  the  unleavened 
bread  of  sincerity  and  truth."  2.  The  annual  expiation, 
iu  two  respects :  first,  as  the  high-priest  entered  into  the 
holy  of  holies  (representing  heaven,  Exod.  xxv,  40 ;  Heb. 
ix,  24)  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice,  whose  body  was 
burned  without  the  camp ;  "  wherefore  Jesus  also,  that  he 
might  sanctify  the  people  with  his  own  blood,  suffered 
without  the  gate,"  Ileb.  xiii,  12  ;  and  "  after  he  had  offered 
one  sacrifice  for  sin,  for  ever  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,"  Ileb.  x,  12  ;  and,  secondly,  as  "all  the  iniquity  of 
the  children  of  Israel  was  put  upon  the  head  "  of  the  scape 
goat.  Lev.  xvi,  21.  3.  The  brazen  serpent,  by  looking  up 
to  which  the  people  were  cured  of  the  stings  of  the  fiery 
serpents  ;  and  whose  "  lifting  up  "  was,  by  Christ  himself, 
interpreted  as  emblematical  of  his  being  lifted  up  on  the 
cross,  John  lii,  14.  4.  The  manna,  which  represented  "the 
bread  of  life,  that  came  down  from  heaven,"  John  vi,  31- 
35.  5.  The  rock,  whence  the  waters  flowed,  to  supply 
drink  in  the  wilderness ;  "  and  that  rock  was  Christ,"  1 
Cor.  X,  4.  6.  The  Sabbath,  "  a  shadow  of  Christ,"  Col.  ii, 
16,  17  :  and,  as  a  figure  of  his  eternal  rest,  denominated  "  a 
sign  of  the  perj^etual  covenant,"  Exod.  xxxi,  16,  17  ;  Ezek. 
XX,  12,  20.  And,  lastly,  to  omit  others,  the  temple,  where 
alone  the  shadowy  sacrifices  were  to  be  offered,  because 
Christ,  "  the  body,"  was  to  be  offered  there  himself. 


280  Watson's  theological  institltes 


Of  personal  types,  likewise,  I  shall  confine  myself  to 
such  as  are  so  considered  in  the  New  Testament. 

1.  Adam,  between  whom  and  Christ  a  striking  series 
of  relations  is  remarked,  Rom.  v,  12-21,  and  1  Cor.  xv,  45- 
49.  2.  Noah,  who  :was  "  saved  by  water  ;  the  like  figure 
whereunto,  even  baptism,  doth  now  save  us,  by  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Pet.  iii,  20,  21.  3.  Melchisedeh, 
king  of  Salem,  who  was  made  "  like  unto  the  Son  of  God, 
a  priest  continually,"  Heb.  vii,  3.  4.  Abraham,  "  the  heir 
of  the  world,"  Rom.  iv,  13,  "in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  are  blessed,"  Gen.  xviii,  18.  5.  Isaac,  in  his  birth 
and  intended  sacrifice,  whence  also  his  father  received  him 
in  a  figure,  Heb.  xi,  19,  that  is,  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
He,  too,  was  the  promised  seed.  Gen.  xxi,  12,  and  Gal.  iii, 
16,  in  whom  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed, 
Gen.  xxii,  18.  6.  Jacob,  in  his  vision  of  the  ladder.  Gen. 
xxviii,  12,  and  John  1,  51,  and  his  wrestling  with  the 
angel ;  whence  he,  and  after  him  the  church,  obtained  the 
name  of  Israel,  Gen.  xxxii,  24,  and  Matt,  xi,  21.  The  Gen- 
tile world  also,  like  Jacob,  gained  the  blessing  and  heirship 
from  their  elder  brethren,  the  Jews.  7.  3foses,  Deut.  xviii, 
18,  and  John  i,  45,  in  redeeming  the  children  of  Israel  out 
of  Egypt.  8.  Joshua,  called  also  Jesus,  Heb.  iv,  8,  in  ac- 
quiring for  them  the  possession  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  as 
lieutenant  to  the  "  captain  of  the  host  of  the  Lord,"  Josh. 
V.  14.  9.  David,  Psa.  xvi,  10,  and  Act^s  ii,  25-35,  upon 
whose  throne  Christ  is  said  to  sit,  Isa.  ix,  7,  and  by  whose 
name  he  is  frequently  designated,  Hos.  iii,  5  &c.,  in  his  pas- 
toral, regal,  and  prophetical  capacity.  10.  Jonah,  in  his 
dark  imprisonment  of  three  days,  applied  by  Christ  to  him- 
self, Matt,  xii,  40. 

The  eighth  mark  is,  that  the  facts  of  Christianity  are 
such  as  to  make  it  impossible  for  either  the  relators  or  the 


AND  THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED. 


281 


hearers  to  believe  them,  if  false,  without  supposing  a  uni- 
versal deception  of  the  senses  of  mankind. 

For  they  were  related  by  the  doers,  or  by  eye-witnesses, 
to  those  who  themselves  hkewise  either  were  or  might 
have  been  present,  and  undoubtedly  knew  many  that  were 
present,  at  their  performance.  To  this  circumstance,  in- 
deed, both  Christ  and  his  ajDOstles  both  often  appeal.  And 
they  were  of  such  a  nature  as  wholly  to  exclude  every 
chance  of  imposition.  What  juggler  could  have  given 
sight  to  him  "  that  was  born  bUnd ; "  have  fed  five  thou- 
sand hungry  guests  with  "  five  loaves  and  two  fishes ; "  or 
have  raised  one,  who  had  been  "  four  days  buried,"  from 
his  grave  ? 

"When,  then,  we  add  to  this,  that  none  of  the  Jewish  or 
Roman  persecutors  of  Christianity,  to  whom  its  first  teach- 
ers frequently  referred  as  witnesses  of  those  facts,  ever  ven- 
tured to  deny  them ;  that  no  apostate  disciple,  under  the 
fear  of  punishment,  or  the  hope  of  reward,  not  even  the 
artful  and  accomplished  Julian  himself,  ever  pretended  to 
detect  them ;  that  neither  learning  nor  ingenuity,  in  the 
long  lapse  of  so  many  years,  has  been  able  to  show  their 
falsehood ;  though  for  the  first  three  centuries  after  their 
promulgation  the  civil  government  strongly  stimulated 
hostile  inquiry ;  and  that  their  original  relaters,  after  lives 
of  uninterrupted  hardship,  joyfully  incurred  death  in  defence 
of  their  truth, — we  cannot  imagine  the  possibility  of  a  more 
perfect  or  abundant  demonstration. 

It  now  rests  with  the  deists,  if  they  would  vindicate 
their  claim  to  the  self-bestowed  title  of  "  men  of  reason,'''' 
to  adduce  some  matters  of  fact  of  former  ages,  which  they 
allow  to  be  true,  possessing  evidence  superior,  or  even 
similar,  to  those  of  Christ.  This,  however,  it  must  at  the 
Bame  time  be  observed,  would  be  far  from  proving  the 


282  Watson's  theological  institutes 

matters  of  fact  resi^ecting  Christ  to  be  false  ;  but  certainly 
-without  this  they  cannot  reasonably  assert  that  their  own 
facts  alone,  so  much  less  powerfully  attested,  are  true. 
Let  them  jiroduce  their  Cresar,  or  Mohammed, 

1.  Performuig  a  fact,  of  ■\Yhich  men's  outwaul  senses 
can  judge  : 

2.  Publicly^  in  the  presence  of  witnesses : 

3.  In  memory  of  which  j^ublie  monuments  and  actions 
are  kept  up : 

4.  Instituted  and  commencing  at  the  time  of  the  fact : 

5.  Recorded  likewise  in  a  set  of  books,  addressed  to 
the  identical  people  before  whom  it  was  performed,  and 
containing  their  lohole  code  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  Urns : 

C.  As  the  work  of  one  previously  annoimced  for  that 
very  period  by  a  long  train     prophecies  : 

7.  And  still  more  peculiarly  prefigured  by  types,  both 
of  a  circumstantial  and  personal  nature,  from  the  earliest 
ages :  and, 

8.  Of  such  a  character  as  made  it  impossible  for  either 
the  relators  or  hearers  to  believe  it,  if  false,  without  sup- 
posing a  universcd  deception  of  the  senses  of  manhind. 

Farther :  let  them  disj^lay,  in  its  jijro/essec?  eye-witnesses, 
similar  ^?roo/s  of  veracity  ;  in  some  doctrines  founded  upon 
it,  and  unaided  by  force  or  intrigue,  a  like  triumph  over 
the  p)rcjudices  and  passions  of  mankind:  among  its  believ- 
ers, equal  skill  and  eqiaal  diligence  in  scrutinizing  its  evi- 
dences, OE  LET  them  SUBJHT  TO  THE  IKKESISTIBLE  CEKTAINTY 
OF  THE  ChEISTIAN  RELIGION. 

And  now,  reader,  solemnly  consider  what  that  religion 
is,  the  truth  of  which  is  proved  by  so  many  decisive  marks. 
It  is  a  declared  revelation  from  God ;  pronounces  all  men 
guilty  in  his  sight ;  proclaims  pardon  as  his  free  gift  through 
the  meritorious  righteousness,  sacrifice,  and  intercession  of 


a:nd  the  biule  defended. 


283 


his  only  Son,  to  all  who  trust  alone  iu  his  mercy  and  grace, 
cordially  re2>enting  and  forsaking  their  sins ;  requires  fer- 
vent love,  ardent  zeal,  and  cordial  submission  toAvard  him- 
self, and  the  highest  degree  of  personal  purity  and  temper- 
ance, with  rectitude  and  benevolence  toward  others ;  and 
olfers  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  these  purjioses  to  all 
who  sincerely  ask  it.  Consider,  this  religion  is  the  onI>j 
true  one,  and  this  is  tremendously  true: — while  it  promises 
peace  on  earth  and  eternal  happiness  to  all  who  do  receive 
and  obey  it,  it  denounces  everlasting  destruction  against  all 
who  do  not.  It  is  in  vain  for  you  to  admit  its  truth  unless 
you  receive  it  as  yowr  .confidence,  and  obey  it  as  your  rule. 
O  study,  O  embrace  it  for  yourself;  and  may  the  God  of 
love  and  peace  be  with  you  !  Amen. 


THE  END. 


